Talk:Lamsa Bible

NPOV

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)

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)

Choice of external link (who is John Juedes?)

There's exactly one external link listed at the bottom of the article, and it is to a piece by John P. Juedes.

It is entitled George M. Lamsa: Christian Scholar or Cultic Torchbearer?

That cited piece is largely about how Lamsa's religious beliefs may be unacceptable from an evangelical perspective, with a smaller amount on why Lamsa is translating the wrong thing, and just a little on why that translation of the wrong thing may be lacking. (However, Juedes must be given due credit for integrity in making very clear the point of view attached to his assessment.)

My feeling is that the Juedes piece might be better attached to a biography of Lamsa rather than here.

External links to this article should focus on the subject matter of this article, i think --- are there no reviews of this translation of a Biblical source which evaluate it strictly based on the quality of the translation? Son of eugene (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really about Lamsa

This page has a lot of content which is related to the bigger issue of why 100% of tenured academia regards the Peshitta as a translation from Greek and the Assyrian Church tradition (which it isn't sourced in the article that the modern church even holds formally) is regarding as a quaint local idea rather than a serious option. Some links out of the article on that might expose it to better sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lamsa Bible.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)