Warning: file_exists() [function.file-exists]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/usr/home/mgeek/domains/biblica.frih.org/public_html/old/wp-content/plugins/catholic-reference/texts/drb/1.book) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/mgeek/:/tmp:/var/tmp:/usr/local/lib/php/) in /home/mgeek/domains/biblica.frih.org/public_html/old/wp-content/plugins/catholic-reference/catholic-reference.php on line 700
Warning: file_exists() [function.file-exists]: open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/usr/home/mgeek/domains/biblica.frih.org/public_html/old/wp-content/plugins/catholic-reference/texts/ccc/ccc-1-100.txt) is not within the allowed path(s): (/home/mgeek/:/tmp:/var/tmp:/usr/local/lib/php/) in /home/mgeek/domains/biblica.frih.org/public_html/old/wp-content/plugins/catholic-reference/catholic-reference.php on line 705
This post is provoked by another one of those “lessons” given by two INC ministers on TV. The lesson was on the true Church and the part of the program which irked me was the explanation of Acts 20:28. By now, people already know that every time the INC quote Acts 20:28, they also mention the Lamsa translation. What is the Lamsa translation? The Lamsa translation of the New Testament is named after George Lamsa who is presented as a scholar and whose “contribution” to biblical studies has been his so-called NT translation from the Aramaic originals. But is this claim about Lamsa and his Bible true?
I have here two reviews of the work of George Lamsa. One is by Bruce Metzger, head of the biblical committee that brings us the critical edition of the Greek text of the New Testament , and another one by an Evangelical minister:
First by Bruce Metzger (as taken from a bible seminar he gave):
The words below were spoken by Bruce Metzger, who is the world’s leading authority on New Testament manuscripts and on the Greek text of the New Testament. He made these comments during a question and answer period at the conclusion of a full-day lecture on “Highlights from the Sermon on the Mount,” which he delivered in 1992 at The Foundation for Biblical Research, in Charlestown, New Hampshire, USA. The Foundation has been renamed the “Center for Scriptural Studies” and is now located at 2595 Depot Street Manchester Center, VT 05255-9541, 802-362-2432. The Center for Scriptural Studies webpage may be browsed at http://scripturalstudies.org. The following words were transcribed by Robert Nguyen Cramer, by permission of The Foundation. It is worthwhile noting that Dr. Metzger is a genuinely gentle and mild-mannered individual, but here he spoke with unequivocally strong words when he addressed the issue of the Lamsa Bible.
QUESTION FROM SEMINAR ATTENDEE: Are there not Aramaic documents and manuscripts which would shed authentic light on the career of Jesus? And how does the Aramaic relate to the Greek and to the Hebrew?”
DR. METZGER’S ANSWER: The answer briefly is yes and no. But, of course, I want to expand on that.
The common language of people in Palestine in the first century was the Semitic language related to Hebrew, much as Spanish is related to Portuguese — Aramaic. The word “king” in Hebrew is melek. The word “king” in Aramaic is malkawh. Melek, malkawh — same consonants.
Now Jesus undoubtedly did commonly speak to common people in Aramaic. I think that also on occasion he’d use Greek.
He grew up in Galilee. In the north, Galilee was called, “Galilee of the Gentiles.” Many gentiles living in Galilee — many more in proportion to Jewish people than in Jerusalem. Naturally Jewish people living in Galilee would be bilingual. For business reasons. And I think that Jesus was bilingual, and on some occasions would speak in Greek.
When the Syrophenician woman came to him from outside of Palestine, she would use Greek. He conversed with her in Greek, I’m sure. When in John’s Gospel, Philip comes and says to Jesus, “There are some Greeks who would like to speak with you.” I think that then Jesus would have spoken in Greek. But normally I believe that he would have given much of his teachings in the Aramaic language.
There are four fossils of Aramaic left in the Gospel of Mark. Four remnants in Aramaic. To the little girl, “Talitha cumi” [Mar 5:41] — “Girl, I say to you, get up.” To the blind man, “ephphatha” [Mar 7:34] — “be opened.” In his prayer in Gethsemene, “Abba, Father” [Mar 14:36]. Abba is still today the common usage in Palestine, meaning, “Father,” “Daddy.” And on the cross, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani” [Mar 15:34] — “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” Those four remnants are still preserved in Mark’s Gospel — of Aramaic, from the lips of Jesus.
Yes, there are Aramaic documents, especially now that the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls have come to light — that were written about the time of Jesus — documents in Hebrew and Aramaic that are non-religious documents. Some of them are religious documents. They help us to understand the ambiance of society at that time. So that’s the “yes” part of my answer.
But the “no” part to your question is this: We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left. All we have are Greek documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So — except for these four fossils that are left embedded in the text of Mark, the four brief statements or words in Aramaic from Jesus — no! And people today that sell books and say, “Oh, here, I have translated the Aramaic documents of the gospels” — they are frauds. They’re out for our money. Don’t be taken in by such works.
George Lamsa, L-A-M-S-A, who in the 1940s persuaded a reputable publisher of the Bible in Philadelphia, the Winston Publishing Company, to issue his absolute fraud, of ‘the Bible translated from the original Aramaic.’ Absolutely a money getter, and nothing else.
He said that ‘the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic,’ and he ‘translates it from the Aramaic,’ but he never would show anybody the manuscripts that he translated from. Secondly, why would Paul write in Aramaic, let us say, to the people of Galatia? They didn’t know any more Aramaic than people in Charlestown or Princeton know Aramaic. Why would Paul write to the Romans in Aramaic? They didn’t know Aramaic. So, even from a logical point of view, it’s silly to say that ‘the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic.’
Jesus orally communicated some of these teachings in Aramaic. We have a record of that today in Greek manuscripts.
So, yes and no. Chiefly no.
(Source: Additional authoritative testimony regarding the worthlessness of the Lamsa Bible)
In other words, the Lamsa translation is actually a RETRO translation-cum-recreation a “supposed” Aramaic bible on basis of the Syriac Peshitta — another translation of the NT! Have you tried playing around with Babelfish and see how retro-translations work? Try translating “What are we, men or mice” from English into Spanish. Erase the English original. Now, try to retranslate the Spanish result into French. From French, work your back to the English original and see what happens. Here are my results:
(English Original) What are we men or mice?
(English to Spanish) ?Cu?l somos hombres o ratones?
(Spanish Result to French) Quels sommes- des hommes ou des souris ?
(French Result to English) Which let us be men or mice?
Imagine what happens when you assume a supposed original that has been retro-translated AND recreated from another translation!
The second review about Lamsa and his work comes from an Evangelical minister (I think). This is what he writes:
The Evangelical Christian Response to Lamsa
On the surface, Lamsa appears to be a revealer of biblical truth and culture and a friend of evangelical Christianity. Closer study, however, has revealed that Lamsa promotes metaphysical, not evangelical teachings which have led him to inaccurate interpretations and translations of portions of the Bible. As an ambassador of Nestorian, not biblical culture, Lamsa became a cultic figure in his own right.
Although Lamsa appears to offer truth to his readers, he preaches many and severe errors instead. The biblical author Jude warned against false teachers like Lamsa who are like “clouds without water” and “autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead” which deliver the opposite of what they promise. Therefore, Christians should not receive, promote, or refer to Lamsa’s work, nor stock his books in their libraries (unless it is for the purpose of discernment ministry) or bookstores. When questions about the biblical text, culture, or Jesus’ teachings arise, one should instead refer to scholarly and evangelical books on these subjects. When cults and new religions cite Lamsa in opposition to evangelical teaching, one must “contend earnestly for the faith” (Jude 3), exposing the lifelessness of Lamsa’s teaching and leading them to the fruit of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
Source: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0032a.html
Is there more need to comment?
Leave a Reply