Talk:George Lamsa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Assyria (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I contest that Lamsa provided any meaningful insight. The last words of Jesus are an Aramaic translation of the opening of Psalm 22, which undoubtedly says "Why have you forsaken me"? Creeating a spurious variant that disagrees with the Old Testament is no solution.

Lamsa gives a long list of places where the Aramaic text of the Peshitta apparently agrees with the Hebrew or Greek original, but a slight alteration in the Aramaic produces what he regards as a better reading. This is not a sensible way to proceed with Bible translation. No doubt other Bible translations alter their original to yield better sense, but few are as cavalier as Lamsa, and most will carefully justify any changes by reference to the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls or other sources.

Lamsa argued that his procedure was valid because the Peshitta represents the original version of the New Testament and the received Greek text is a translation of the Peshitta. Few if any scholars would give this the slightest credence. He even argues that the original Hebrew of the Old Testament was lost and the received Hebrew text is a re-translation of the Peshitta. 22:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do we do with this article?[edit]

Well done to Ms Brown for her re-write. But shouldn't an article caled George Lamsa be basically a biography of Dr. Lamsa? I suggest that the discussion about the meaning of words in the Bible belongs in the article Lamsa Bible. But if it is moved, there's not much left of this article. 16:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One true authoritative version of the Bible[edit]

It's not NPOV to say that his is the one true version of the Bible. If someone did some research to this effect, we might accurately describe the research in NPOV terms, but never state a contraversial opinion as fact.--Prosfilaes 22:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss anything on the talk page?

Without judgment on the part of this article's authors, it can be neutrally stated that Dr. Hawkins' personal conclusions -- determined by means of scientific kinesiology tests -- were that Dr. Lamsa's version of the Bible is the most truthful version currently known to mankind. Dr. Hawkins, a M.D. and Ph.D., has been knighted for his work, and lectured widely at universities (Harvard, Oxford, et al.) and to spiritual groups from Westminster Abbey and Notre Dame to Catholic, Protestant, and Buddhist monasteries.

The first part of that statement is lousy; don't say "Without judgment on the part of this article's authors, it can be neutrally stated that". Why include a huge list of credentials? "scientific kinesiology" isn't linked to anything, but kinesiology doesn't seem to make any sense in this statement?--Prosfilaes 01:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What the hell does "scientific kinesiology" mean? Since no one can clarify, I'm going to follow my gut in saying that it's pseudoscientific nonsense and delete the reference to it.--Prosfilaes 19:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Source for flawed methodology?[edit]

On one of the pages related to this, I believe it's the Last Sayings of Jesus page, there was a sentence stating that his (Lamsa's) methodology is flawed. I would like a source for this comment, as it would seem to be biased otherwise. (Speaking of which, I think it would be wise to check that our SOURCES themselves aren't biased, as well.) Also, on this page, if there's no source for the parts about flawed and pseudo-methods, doesn't that qualify as bias and/or original research (if you could call it that) as well? Secos5 22:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Aramaic primacy scholarship already suffers from two layers in the field: Actual scholarship (Casey, Black, Chilton, etc.), and a popular pseudofield (Lamsa, Errico, Trimm, Roth, etc). Where people in the pseudofield will endorse Lamsa, no one in the actual scholarly field will hesitate to state that Lamsa's methodology is not only flawed, but spurious; however, most people in the actual scholarly field tend to ignore Lamsa altogether in serious works, not even bothering to address him. I've done quite a bit of research and discussion about Lamsa and his methods over the past five years, and I can tell you one-on-one that Lamsa's work is a mess and give copious examples of where his methodologies are not scholarly; however, Wikipedia will not allow me to post my material under the "original research" clause, as I'd have to cite myself. :-) --Steve Caruso 01:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Steve, but what do you mean with the term 'actual scholarly field' ? Since when do scholars have any authority in the field of religion and spirituality? Who gave it to them? God? Nope, they gave it themselves - it's a case of pure self-entitlement. Scholars are just scholars - no more no less. The fact that you, like many other so-called 'intellectuals' in the West, are submissive to scholars and portray them as having absolute authority has in reality nothing to do with George Lamsa or the Lamsa bible itself - it is nothing but your personal view. Most mainstream academicians are deeply atheistic and just love to hate anything that has to do with anything that transcend the mundane physical world - particularly God and spiritual Reality. Hence, all the pages on Wikipedia that deal with topics such as these are smeared with the unimportant criticism of ignorant -yet self-inflated - scholars; these are persons who in truth have not a single clue about what they are talking. To suggest that academic lads like scholars hold any true authority on the validity of spiritual works is simply delusional and is the result of cultural brainwash. That the Lamsa bible contains a clearer perception of Jesus and his sayings in comparision with the Greek versions is simply a self evident fact and not at all does it need approval from the biggest enemies of the religious life - the scientific and academic communities and their lame minds. Scholars do not know God, or his Grace, hence they are bewildered when they read a version of the Bible wherein Jesus clearly testifies of this. Personal conclusion: the Wikipedia article about George Lamsa is anything BUT neutral and is actually extremely disrespectful towards Lamsa's life and his gift to humanity: the Lamsa Bible. Zeep88 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So tell us then, who has the "authority" to interpret "spiritual works"? Who decides? Is every opinion, no matter how ill-informed, equal on the subject? Or is there some kind of esoteric knowledge given only to prophets here? Is this true of every field or only ones touching on religious texts?
If you reject expertise and the validity of credentials, then you must similarly reject the expertise of the Aramaic primacists like Lamsa, logically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

David Hawkins[edit]

The bit about David Hawkins really didn't seem to fit where it was, and he seems rather a fringe voice. I didn't see the point in deleting it all, since someone might find this of interest, so I moved it to its own section.

I appreciate the desire not to squelch potentially useful information, but I do see the point in deleting it all. This is entirely outside the scope of this supposed bio page of Lamsa, besides being fringe and incoherent. Also note that the page on David Hawkins has been killed completely. I'm removing this section.PFR 03:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFR (talkcontribs)

Broken links[edit]

These links are broken. Can anyone fix them?

Review of Lamsa's translation by Herbert G May, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 26, No. 4, Oct., 1958 (JSTOR) Review of Lamsa's translation by PAH de Boer, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 8, Fasc. 2, Apr., 1958 (JSTOR) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We need someone with a JSTOR account to look for the right link. Chaldean (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Branham quote lacks context[edit]

Unless I am missing something, the Branham quote:

   "To our gratification we find the words in both amazingly the same so that there is no difference actually in content or doctrine.

seems to be lacking context, such that the meaning of "the words in both" is unclear.

Both of what, exactly?

Toddcs (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Lamsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)