The Holy Bible from the Ancient Eastern Text: George M. Lamsa's Translations from the Aramaic of the Peshitta [Paperback]

Let me quickly dispense with the negative aspects of this Bible first: The words of Christ are not printed in red; the personal pronouns for God and Jesus are not capitalized; there is no center-column referencing; and quotation marks are not employed. What this version needs is an overhaul by a good editor, and to be made available in a durable leather-bound and/or hardcover edition.

In his book, NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN, Dr. George Lamsa states, 'Not a word of the Scriptures was originally written in Greek...the Scriptures were written in Aramaic.' I believe that he is correct and that those Christian apologists and ministers scrutinizing the nuances of Greek words for deeper understanding would be better served investigating the subtle meaning of Aramaic words and the cloaked truth behind Aramaic idioms.

The Aramaic word for 'camel' is written identically to the word for 'rope.' When the original scrolls were being transferred into Greek, an error occurred due to the translator's limitations. Matthew 19:24 is commonly translated as, 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.' This is an obvious 'non sequitur', whereas the Aramaic manuscripts read 'rope' instead of 'camel'. Rope, of course, is much more in keeping with the imagery of a needle, and is probably what Jesus said, and what was originally recorded.

Similarly, Matthew 7:3 says, 'Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?' And yet, in Lamsa's version the word 'splinter' appears in place of 'speck.' The organic relationship between a splinter and a plank (or beam) is obvious while speck is more nebulous. Again, Lamsa's translation remains true to the imagery being conveyed.

The ninth chapter of Daniel contains the amazing Old Testament prophecy concerning the surprisingly sudden death of the long-awaited Messiah and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. A portion of verse 26 in other Biblical translations states, 'The end of it shall be with a flood.' The most well written and spiritually mature approach to 'The Tribulation' and the events of 'The Revelation' that I am aware of is David Haggith's, END-TIME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE. But even the ordinarily clear-minded Mr. Haggith had trouble correlating this passage with known history. 'Blood covered the land like a flood', he overreaches. It comes as no surprise then that the Aramaic manuscripts do not make mention of any unknown flood. Lamsa's translation accurately reads, 'And the end thereof shall be a mass exile.'

Although there is much more evidence, these three examples should be sufficient to convince most serious Bible students that Lamsa's translation from the ancient Aramaic offers us the most trustworthy rendering of Scripture.

Finally, I'd like to elaborate on the comment of brother Ram Munjal from his good 2004, Jan. 21 review: All Bibles tell us that from the Cross, Jesus (quoting Psalm 22:1) cried out, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' (See Matthew 27:46) This verse has undoubtedly disturbed people for centuries, and no wonder - it is extremely unlikely that Jesus ever felt utterly abandoned by God while He was hanging on the Cross. The Messiah had been promised His Father's abiding Presence! Nothing happened to Jesus that He was not mentally prepared for. He told His disciples in advance what to expect : He would be mocked, spat upon, beaten, and killed, but that three days later He would rise again. (Mark 10:34) He also said to them, 'you will be scattered...and will leave Me alone. And yet I am not alone, because The Father is with Me.' (John 16:32) Was Jesus mistaken? Or is the translation inaccurate?

'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' (My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?) correctly appears in the Aramaic manuscripts as, 'Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani' (My God, My God, for this I was spared [this was my destiny.]) Indeed! At different times mobs had attempted to kill Jesus, but He was always SPARED because it was His Will and His DESTINY to take mankind's sins to the Cross to be washed clean in His Blood. The Aramaic phrases are so similar that it is easy to understand how the mistake was made, but the meanings are worlds apart, and Lamsa's version is much more consistent with the Mission of The Christ. Trying to correlate the mistranslation, Christian theologians have been forced to create a flimsy dogma (Jesus being separated from God while descending into hell) in order to cover for this improbable utterance from our Lord while He was suffering on the Cross. Lamsa resolves this dilemma in a far more satisfactory manner. Furthermore, according to the Aramaic Scriptures, Psalm 22:1 doesn't read, 'Why have You forsaken Me?' in the first place, but rather, 'Why has thou let Me to live?'

There are plenty more sound arguments to support Lamsa's contention that the New Testament first appeared in the Aramaic language. You may wish to get a copy of his IDIOMS IN THE BIBLE EXPLAINED AND A KEY TO THE ORIGINAL GOSPELS and/or NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN (Available from the Noohra Foundation - an organization I strongly disagree with on certain crucial issues.)

When in doubt, George Lamsa's translation is the one I always side with. An added bonus is that this Bible is large and heavy, and should you ever find it necessary to really whack somebody upside the head with The Word Of God, this version is sure to make quite an impression!

I am citing verses from the Law Of Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, The Gospels, and the Epistles to demonstrate as to why I base my faith only on this translation of the Holy Scriptures from the Ancient Eastern Text by Dr. George Lamsa. For comparison the verses from New International Version (NIV) are also cited.

[1] GENESIS 2:20
Lamsa's translation:
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to all fowls of the air, and to all wild beasts; but for Adam there was not found a helper who was equal to him.
NIV translation:
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found
Note the word "EQUAL" in lamsa's translation. Woman is equal to man.
[2] 1 CHRONICLES 16:42
Lamsa's translation:
And these righteous men gave thanks not with the instruments of singing, neither with the tambourines nor with timbrels nor with the curved trumpets nor with the straight trumpets nor with the cymbals, but with a pleasant mouth and with pure and perfect prayer and with righteousness and with purity to the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel.
NIV translation:
Heman and Jeduthan were responsible for the sounding of the trumpets and cymbals and for the playing of the other instruments for sacred song. The sons of Jeduthan were stationed at the gate.
Note that in NIV the verse has been chopped off.
[3] PSALM 22:1
Lamsa's translation:
My God, my God, why hast Thou let me to live?.....
NIV translation:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.

It needs to be noted that the NIV translation borders on blasphemy. When Lord Eshoo was on the cross, He quoted this Psalm(Matthew 27:46). God was with Him on the cross otherwise He would not have been able to endure the torture of the cross from the hands of cruel and wicked Romans. Lord Eshoo before going to the cross had told his disciples that " For behold the hour is coming, and it has now come, when you will be dispersed, every man to his own country, and you will leave me alone; and yet I am never alone because the Father is with me (JOHN 16:32)." He would never contradict Himself little later.
[4] MALACHI 3:6
Lamsa's translation:
For I am the LORD, I change not; but you sons of Jacob have not departed from your iniquities.
NIV translation:
I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
Note: Once again NIV translation is messed up. This verse 6 in Lamsa's translation links perfectly well with the previous verse 5 and the verse 7 that follows. NIV does not make any sense.
[5] MATTHEW 6:13
Lamsa's translation:
And do not let us enter into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen
NIV translation:
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Note NIV chops off the verse. Furthermore NIV translation is pathetic. James writes: "God does not tempt any man. But every man is tempted by his own lust(James 1:13,14).
[6] LUKE 14:26
Lamsa's translation:
He who comes to Me and does not put aside his father and his mother and his brothers and his sisters and his wife and his children and even his own life can not be a disciple to me.
NIV translation:
If any one comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he can not be My disciple.
Note the word "hate" in NIV translation. In the sermon on the mount LORD ESHOO MESHIHA said:"Do not suppose that I have come to weaken the law or the prophets; I have not come to weaken, but to fulfil.(Matthew 5:17)". Law says honor your mother and father. Use of the word "hate" in NIV translation is unfortunate and borders on trashing the Ten Commandments.
[7] ROMANS 9:13
Lamsa's translation:
As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I set aside.
NIV translation:
Just as it is written: " Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Note again the improper use of the word "hate".

EPHESIANS 6:12
Lamsa's translation:
For your conflict is not only with flesh and blood, but also with the angels, and with powers, with the rulers of this world of darkness, and with the evil spirits under the heaven.
NIV translation:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Note the word "Only" and the word "also" in Lamsa's translation is missing from NIV.
NIV translators have shown total ignorance of the spiritual warfare that I am engaged in. The book of Revelation correctly identifies the enemies of the Gospel of the Kingdom of LORD ESHOO MESHIHA. They are Satan and his three allies. The three allies are: Beast out of the sea (Ruling powers), Beast out the earth (False religion), and Babylon (Gaudy Prostitute). Lamsa's translation of the verse is right on the mark.
I can keep on reciting. But I have proved my point. NIV translation can not be trusted. King James version is no better.
Sincerely and Cordially
Dr. Ram Munjal, Ph.D.; S.S.

That Jesus and his contemporaries spoke Aramaic as their primary language is not in question. This is accepted, historical fact. Therefore, it makes sense that to better understand what Jesus and others of his era said, we must look to the Aramaic language which precedes Greek texts.

What George Lamsa did several decades ago was to look to Aramaic language manuscripts to create a more enlightened translation which reflects the language of Jesus, his followers and the common people to whom He ministered, rather than the Greek language of the military and political leaders of His time who would in time crucify Him.

The Lamsa Bible is then a step forward, but still, Lamsa was apparently afraid of offending too many people with his groundbreaking version, so he relied upon the King James translation in large part for style and form, making thousands of corrections to the Bible from the Aramaic texts and applying it to the more accepted form.

The KJV reader then will not find the Lamsa Bible too shockingly different, but the careful student of scripture will detect the differences and be blessed by Lamsa's Aramaic language perspective.

One might say Lamsa translated the Aramaic Bible text on the back of the King James Version.

I have used the Lamsa version as my primary Bible in 7 years of teaching and preaching, and it has served me well, although I often use also the superb NRSV, the Good News Bible (TEV) and the Scholar's Version (Jesus Seminar) and Inclusive Language translations of the Gospel as well.

I give the Lamsa Bible 4 stars, because it is a step forward into the light of understanding the Truth of Spirit, but it is now several decades old and becoming a wee bit archaic and musty in the face of user-friendly, easy-reading but simplistic modern translations like the NIV, CEV and NLT.

It's time for a modern revision of the Lamsa Bible!