As for me, I am "eliding the salvific conclusion" of being free of TWI along with you. And as a result need far less of the consolation of the lamenting Psalms day to day than I used to when I was in.
Well Lamsa made his own Bible, and he didn't really know what he was doing, but he thought he did, and so few people were doing anything with Syriac and Chaldean, much less Aramaic back then. The majority of his Bible was just a modern language translation of established versions and rarely deviated from them much except in a few key places where ARAMAIC supposedly made all the difference.
I guess it was interesting to know that a rope couldn't go through the eye of a needle. I think Lamsa tried to make a case that he was the premiere Aramaic scholar, and no one would really say otherwise back then, either because they didn't know Aramaic, or because they were happy to see their scholarly field receiving some long overdue attention, and perhaps, some respect on the horizon.
I have no problem with scholars except when they lie or lose sight of common sense to feed their egos. And they are a very small (yet often vocal) percentage of each field of study. For those who do the work and learn through their studies, I have nothing but respect, as long as they correct rather than codify their errors - if and when they discover them.
The Way International does the reverse. and if something is glaringly wrong, they whitewash it and push on without correcting it.
One of the cool things about Lamsa, whenever it seemed I got stuck in another text; I could always count on Lamsa to keep me moving on in my researching.
It seems to me that one can tell when a Biblical Scholar has finally "arrived" in that he no longer believes in much of anything anymore. He embraces agnosticism with open arms relieves himself of the daily struggle to try to make sense of the inherently irrational...
Ah, Geo. Geo. Geo., how could I love you any more? not if you were a believer.
.... rational/irrational.... yes ,the substrata of primitive religion (fundamentalism) is indeed irrational and, thus, dangerous and despicable. Primitive religion is bad religion, it sucks.
However, I hold out hope that I can be Christian rationally (perhaps rational Christianity IS agnostic in that it doesn't claim that faith is fact).
My Christianity is an effort to live rationally -- few doctrines except Romans 13:8 have really assisted there. The church is rational, to me, because it structures my life in community... (fancy for ‘makes me up with put, and be up with put by, other people’).
If it results in helping the poor and promoting peace and justice that’s rational enough for me (here's the rational substrata of the Bible actually).
There are examples of rational scholars within the church (most of them seem to give lectures at Oxford); Gloomy Dean William Ralph Inge was one, I think. 'Gloomy' because he lost his beloved daughter as a child.
Marcus Borg, I think, is another.
Rational, of course, includes fallible. It's a path. We both hope that people who leave TWI and its irrational, sick religion will break out of the wilderness and find it.
of course there is Agnes Smith Lewis, Matthew Black, Charles Cutler Torrey(not sure if he is related to Ruben Archer Torrey of Moody Bible Institute), and Arthur Vorbius from University of Chicago.
It seems to me that one can tell when a Biblical Scholar has finally "arrived" in that he no longer believes in much of anything anymore. He embraces agnosticism with open arms relieves himself of the daily struggle to try to make sense of the inherently irrational...
www.abouttheway.org has a few good articles on Lamsa and Aramaic.
Check the "Biblical Research" and "Reviews" sections. The article in the Reviews section reviews TWI's own interlinear Aramaic New Testament, showing how it contradicts TWI theology on several important verses, such as John 1 and Gal 4 (the deity of Jesus Christ), John 21, Philp 3 (death), Mat 28:19 (the Trinity).
Regarding the "cry"... it translates the word as "spared" but two chapters earlier translates the same word accurately as "forsaken."
Contrary to what Lamsa thought, Aramaic was never ignored by New Testament scholars. Greek NTs put Aramaic variant readings in the footnotes where they are signifcant.
It's peculiar that TWI latched on to Lamsa. Lamsa had his office at Unity School of Christianity, which is a "New Thought" group like Christian Science. His actual beliefs contradicted TWI theology on almost every signifcant point. There is a lengthy article on Lamsa in the "Research" section of abouttheway.org Wierwille liked authors that said wild things, no matter how ignorant and inaccurate they were.
I knew this guy, who took Lamsa to the edge of his life, all he would read was Lamsa, all his reasonings came from Lamsa, crazy things? I read Lamsa for the context of the story being told, Lamsa gots a lot of Diamonds in the ruff?
Recommended Posts
Bolshevik
he was from a foreign "exotic" land . . . his insights must have been true . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Great stuff Pax.
As for me, I am "eliding the salvific conclusion" of being free of TWI along with you. And as a result need far less of the consolation of the lamenting Psalms day to day than I used to when I was in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Well Lamsa made his own Bible, and he didn't really know what he was doing, but he thought he did, and so few people were doing anything with Syriac and Chaldean, much less Aramaic back then. The majority of his Bible was just a modern language translation of established versions and rarely deviated from them much except in a few key places where ARAMAIC supposedly made all the difference.
I guess it was interesting to know that a rope couldn't go through the eye of a needle. I think Lamsa tried to make a case that he was the premiere Aramaic scholar, and no one would really say otherwise back then, either because they didn't know Aramaic, or because they were happy to see their scholarly field receiving some long overdue attention, and perhaps, some respect on the horizon.
I have no problem with scholars except when they lie or lose sight of common sense to feed their egos. And they are a very small (yet often vocal) percentage of each field of study. For those who do the work and learn through their studies, I have nothing but respect, as long as they correct rather than codify their errors - if and when they discover them.
The Way International does the reverse. and if something is glaringly wrong, they whitewash it and push on without correcting it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
One of the cool things about Lamsa, whenever it seemed I got stuck in another text; I could always count on Lamsa to keep me moving on in my researching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
It seems to me that one can tell when a Biblical Scholar has finally "arrived" in that he no longer believes in much of anything anymore. He embraces agnosticism with open arms relieves himself of the daily struggle to try to make sense of the inherently irrational...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pax
Ah, Geo. Geo. Geo., how could I love you any more? not if you were a believer.
.... rational/irrational.... yes ,the substrata of primitive religion (fundamentalism) is indeed irrational and, thus, dangerous and despicable. Primitive religion is bad religion, it sucks.
However, I hold out hope that I can be Christian rationally (perhaps rational Christianity IS agnostic in that it doesn't claim that faith is fact).
My Christianity is an effort to live rationally -- few doctrines except Romans 13:8 have really assisted there. The church is rational, to me, because it structures my life in community... (fancy for ‘makes me up with put, and be up with put by, other people’).
If it results in helping the poor and promoting peace and justice that’s rational enough for me (here's the rational substrata of the Bible actually).
There are examples of rational scholars within the church (most of them seem to give lectures at Oxford); Gloomy Dean William Ralph Inge was one, I think. 'Gloomy' because he lost his beloved daughter as a child.
Marcus Borg, I think, is another.
Rational, of course, includes fallible. It's a path. We both hope that people who leave TWI and its irrational, sick religion will break out of the wilderness and find it.
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,
ché la diritta via era smarrita.
Ahi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura
esta selva selvaggia e aspra e forte
che nel pensier rinova la paura!
Tant’ è amara che poco è più morte;
ma per trattar del ben ch’i’ vi trovai,
dirò de l’altre cose ch’i’ v’ho scorte.
Io non so ben ridir com’ i’ v’intrai,10
tant’ era pien di sonno a quel punto
che la verace via abbandonai.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
what about his successor, Rocco A. Errico and his Noohra Foundation from Smyra, GA? any opinions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celtic Believer
Dear Thomas,
Rocco A. Errico is WORSE then Lamsa ever was.
Perhaps he's a bit brighter, but this is like throwing gasoline on the fire.
Everyone gets burned.
Errico is in it for the all mighty dollar, like 98% of the other modern Aramaic Primacy movement people.
If it's possible, Errico is even more 'New Age' then Lamsa was, and he does NOT believe that there is a devil.
I rest my case.
Peace, Albion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
of course there is Agnes Smith Lewis, Matthew Black, Charles Cutler Torrey(not sure if he is related to Ruben Archer Torrey of Moody Bible Institute), and Arthur Vorbius from University of Chicago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HappyGay
Amen!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
www.abouttheway.org has a few good articles on Lamsa and Aramaic.
Check the "Biblical Research" and "Reviews" sections. The article in the Reviews section reviews TWI's own interlinear Aramaic New Testament, showing how it contradicts TWI theology on several important verses, such as John 1 and Gal 4 (the deity of Jesus Christ), John 21, Philp 3 (death), Mat 28:19 (the Trinity).
Regarding the "cry"... it translates the word as "spared" but two chapters earlier translates the same word accurately as "forsaken."
Contrary to what Lamsa thought, Aramaic was never ignored by New Testament scholars. Greek NTs put Aramaic variant readings in the footnotes where they are signifcant.
It's peculiar that TWI latched on to Lamsa. Lamsa had his office at Unity School of Christianity, which is a "New Thought" group like Christian Science. His actual beliefs contradicted TWI theology on almost every signifcant point. There is a lengthy article on Lamsa in the "Research" section of abouttheway.org Wierwille liked authors that said wild things, no matter how ignorant and inaccurate they were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
I knew this guy, who took Lamsa to the edge of his life, all he would read was Lamsa, all his reasonings came from Lamsa, crazy things? I read Lamsa for the context of the story being told, Lamsa gots a lot of Diamonds in the ruff?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.