Talk:George Lamsa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This 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, or visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
 |
This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Syriac script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Syriac script. |
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. 81.134.14.236 22:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] What do we do with this article?
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. 194.200.241.36 16:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] One true authoritative version of the Bible
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)
[edit] Source for flawed methodology?
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)
[edit] David Hawkins
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.
