# Ancient Eastern Text (George Lamsa Trans.)



## Contra Marcion (Apr 24, 2008)

Anyone heard of this? 

I'm teaching our adult Sunday school class, and I have this one older lady who absolutely dominates the conversations (on anything and everything!). Usually, I can redirect and correct her without being harsh, especially since she's 82 years old. 

Last Sunday, however, I heard something new to me: She said that all the original New Testament documents were originally written in Aramaic, and therefore the Greek MSS couldn't be trusted. She then said that her AET (Lamsa) Bible was far more accurate than my ESV, or any other "Greek" Bibles. I had honestly never heard anything so profoundly stupid in my life! I had to stop the class in mid-topic, and discuss manuscript evidence and textual criticism, just to assure the class that they can trust their KJV, NKJV, NIV, ect. 

Has anyone heard much about this (older) translation? I believe it's a translation of the Syriac Peshitta. Also, has anyone heard of this "Aramaic primacy" position?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 24, 2008)

Hi Jake!

I would say it's a good representative of the ancient Syriac Peshitta version (as you said), and valuable for comparison with the Greek text.

There were some chaps who took a position that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew (I do not believe Aramaic), and that was better than the Greek. They were Biven and Blizzard. Their first book was not noteworthy.

But, as concerns the Aramaic of your friend, the OT was written in Hebrew (with a few small portions written in Aramaic -- such as in Daniel), and the New Testament in Greek, with apostolic authority and approval.

The woman through whose powerful witness to Christ I was converted (in 1968) used the Lamsa version. 

I would tell the elderly lady in your class, privately, that you respect her view, but it is not the view you wish to promote in the class, and would she please humbly submit to the teaching authority of the church. She is probably a godly woman, and would comply.

P.S. Here's an example of an aberrant reading it contains:

In the AV's Matt 27:46 (cf. Mk 15:34) the Scripture reads:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?​
Jesus was echoing Psalm 22:1.

The Peshitta reads,

And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said, Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani! My God, my God, for this I was spared! [in margin: This was my destiny.]​
The words in the AV were given as Jesus uttered them, in Aramaic. The Peshitta likewise mangles Psalm 22:1 beyond recognition.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 24, 2008)

It's a bible translated by George Lamsa (hence the name the Lamsa Bible) in the 1930's. He was an Assyrian scholar.

He was of the opinion, following the Assyrian Church, that Aramaic was the native language of the region in Christ's day and that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic and the Greek New Testament is a translation. He also held that the Masoretic Hebrew text is a translation of the Peshitta, because the Jews had lost their authentic texts. Hence, their hypothesis is that both Masoretic Hebrew and Greek texts are inferior to the Peshitta, which is the legitimate tradition. Thus, they hold to an "Aramaic Onlyism," of sorts! Here is a PDF file on the position: "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?"

His translation has numerous problems, probably the most famous is his translation of Christ's words on the cross in Mark 15:34, "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?" to "My God, my God, for this I was spared." The reference back to Psalm 22:1 in his translation reads "My God, my God, why hast thou let me to live?" I won't go into the technical details on this, I'm sure you can find something on the Net that covers the actual words "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" compared to his "Eli, Eli, lemana, shabakthani! I think even Wikipedia has a good explanation on this.

One thing you might try to point out to her is John 19:20 where the sign Pilate placed above the cross, "Jesus OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS," was written in "Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." Her version will read the same thing, John 19:20, AET Why not Aramaic?


Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## etexas (Apr 24, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> It's a bible translated by George Lamsa (hence the name the Lamsa Bible) in the 1930's. He was an Assyrian scholar.
> 
> He was of the opinion, following the Assyrian Church, that Aramaic was the native language of the region in Christ's day and that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic and the Greek New Testament is a translation. He also held that the Masoretic Hebrew text is a translation of the Peshitta, because the Jews had lost their authentic texts. Hence, their hypothesis is that both Masoretic Hebrew and Greek texts are inferior to the Peshitta, which is the legitimate tradition. Thus, they hold to an "Aramaic Onlyism," of sorts! Here is a PDF file on the position: "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?"
> 
> ...


I agree with Thomas. I looked long and hard at this translation, it is flawed in premise and in execution. I found a number of sites that dealt with this in some detail, I may try to find them again and post them.


----------



## joeholland (Apr 24, 2008)

Certainly another argument in favor of the reliability of the Greek mss/language is that in several occasions NT authors choose to quote the OT from the Greek rather than the Hebrew. Paul, at least, didn't see any reason to avoid the LXX. I'd be interested to know what the Aramaic only crew says in rebuttal to that. Surely they have to address it. I guess they could argue that Paul quoted from the Greek back into Aramaic when he wrote his original epistles. Strange nevertheless.

On another note, Contra Marcion, I thought you did the right thing from a teaching/pastoral perspective in how you handled the Sunday School discussion.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 24, 2008)

Blade, your my source for textual criticism it seems. weve already discussed that Christ and apostles didnt use the LXX, and that the LXX is more of a conspircy or something.

then we rambled on a bit about the TR.

so here is a question for you or anyone. 

1) what is the earliest peshitta text available?
2) what is the earliest greek?
3) i have the article "was the NT really written in Greek" (pro peshitia primacy)
do you have a article called "Yes, it was written in greek" (contra peshita)?

many thanks.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 24, 2008)

joeholland said:


> Certainly another argument in favor of the reliability of the Greek mss/language is that in several occasions NT authors choose to quote the OT from the Greek rather than the Hebrew. Paul, at least, didn't see any reason to avoid the LXX. I'd be interested to know what the Aramaic only crew says in rebuttal to that. Surely they have to address it. I guess they could argue that Paul quoted from the Greek back into Aramaic when he wrote his original epistles. Strange nevertheless.
> 
> On another note, Contra Marcion, I thought you did the right thing from a teaching/pastoral perspective in how you handled the Sunday School discussion.



Hi Joe,

The alleged LXX and New Testament quotations of the Old Testament was just discussed at great length in the History of the Authorized Version thread. You may wish to check that thread. 

The PDF file I provided in post # 3 provides their argument regarding that.


----------



## joeholland (Apr 24, 2008)

Thanks for the reference to thread concerning the LXX. I'll check it out. I had no intentions of rehashing a conversation that had already been had.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 28, 2008)

Hi Jeff,

You asked,

i have the article "was the NT really written in Greek" (pro peshitia primacy)
do you have an article called "Yes, it was written in Greek" (contra peshita)?​
I'm looking into it. I'll get back here to you.

Steve


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Apr 30, 2008)

Awesome, Im also looking for one, but not having any luck atm.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 6, 2008)

This will be a very brief synopsis of information.

I suppose the best source for discounting the “Aramaic Primacy” theory is to look over the “evidences” for it – you may do this, if you have the time and inclination, by looking at the post above which gives the url for a pdf copy of such a book. They are certainly not convincing to me, nor to the overwhelming majority of scholars, Christian historians, and text critics.

A lot of this stuff is similar to the “Hebrew Primacy” theory. I give a few urls to sites that address this issue of the Greek, Aramaic, and also, due to its similarity, the Hebrew.

Why Was the New Testament Written in Greek? - Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc

Peter the Rock? Some Thoughts On Matthew 16:18 by Pastor David Th. Stark (An examination of the Greek and Aramaic)

The Original Language of the New Testament was Greek, contents page

----------

“The early church quickly moved into Gentile circles, where Aramaic was less commonly spoken, and that's why the New Testament was originally written in Greek. But the Aramaic language left its traces on its pages.” Edward M. Cook, M.Div., Ph.D

In his book, _The Books and the Parchments_, chapter 5, “The Greek Language”, F.F. Bruce says,



> Although Aramaic appears to have been the common language of our Lord and of the earliest Christians, it is not the language of the New Testament. The revelation under the old covenant, which was in the first instance communicated to one particular nation, was appropriately expressed and recorded in the language of that nation. But the fuller revelation given under the new covenant was not intended to be restricted in this way. The words spoken by Simeon when he saw the infant Saviour (Luke 2:30-32) had not long to wait for their fulfilment once that Saviour had accomplished His work of salvation:
> 
> Mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
> Which thou hast prepared _before the face of all peoples_;
> ...



Closing the previous chapter on the Aramaic language, Bruce says, while discussing the prevalence of Aramaic among the Palestinian community, “But we should not accept uncritically theories which represent our Gospels as such as having originally been written in Aramaic.” (p. 57)

In sum, we may rest easy with the sureness of the statement of our confession,

*The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical... (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8)*​


----------

