Talk:Lamsa Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page does not seem neutral. The last paragraph seems to have been written by somebody who dislikes Lamsa's work and wishes to discredit him. Look at the choice of words here: "The reading made by Lamsa is only marginally possible ... No text of the Peshitta is found to support Lamsa's translation of this verse."

The phrase "only marginally possible" is pejorative, as is the unqualified assertion that Lamsa's translation is unsupported by the Peshitta. The author of the last paragraph seems to be going on a rant about Lamsa's translation, and this should be deleted or softened.

LeonMire 04:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is about the fact that Peal does not allow for Lamsa's translation, and the Ethpeel does so at the most marginal. I've added a quote from Payne Smith to illustrate this. All versions of the Peshitta use the Peal, so there is no support for Lamsa's translation. It's quite straightforward. — Gareth Hughes 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lamsa Bible biases and contradictions

This article states that "The Peshitta New Testament is thought to derive from early Christian Aramaic manuscripts." However, the article on the Peshitta itself says that "Although previous studies had suggested that it was translated from Aramaic Targumim, this is now rejected." I don't know enough about Peshitta scholarship to know one way or the other, but I'd suggest that the Lamsa Bible article be revised, either to correct the contradiction, or at least to clarify, if the two statements are not contradictory.

Also, the assertion that "Nevertheless, every single text of the Peshitta is found to support Lamsa's translation of this verse" seems quite biased in favor of Lamsa, and is especially curious, considering that an earlier version of the article asserted that "No text of the Peshitta is found to support Lamsa's translation of this verse," which is biased in the other direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonMire (talk • contribs) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed both of these statements as untrue. An anonymous editor edited the text before you, so I've rolled it back to a previous version. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)