Book Review: Gospel Light by George M. Lamsa

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Book Review
Gospel Light: An Indispensable Guide to the Teachings of Jesus & the
Customs of His Time
By: George M. Lamsa
copyright 1936


>From the back cover of the trade paperback version, 1992:


In Gospel Light, George M. Lamsa, who was raised speaking Aramaic and
living according to customs largely unchanged since the time of Christ,
elucidates idioms, metaphors, and figures of speech in the four Gospels and
provides clear explanations of their meaning in the biblical context.
Drawing from his deep insights into the ideomatic expressions used in early
biblical cultures, he brings new meaning and understanding to even the msot
difficult passages. Students and general readers alike will find this
reference fascinating. During his lifetime, Lamsa translated the Holy Bible
from the Aramaic of the Peshitta and wrote over twenty books illuminating
the original meaning of Scripture.


This type of reference *should* be good and *should* provide some nice
insights into the text of the New Testament. In some cases, it does. In
otheres, however, it engages in the typical apologetic strategy of deny
that anything whihc might be taken wrongly was meant literally.

But let's be generous and examine what I think is an example of the good
this book can be.

The structre of the book is that each gospel is taken in turn and, in
order, various passages are examined in light of Aramaic. I am pretty sure
that all biblical passages are translations done by Mr. Lamsa, and so I'll
include them so that you can see what he works from. First I'll look at the
section entitled "The Needle and the Rope."

The relevant biblical passage:

And again I say unto you, 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. Matt. 19:24.

An example of hyperbole, it seems. No camels go through needles. One
explanation, that there was a gate in a city wall called "needle eye," but
Mr. Lamsa rejects it by saying that there is no such gate in any oriental
city wall. He offers another interpretation of the text by explaining that
the Aramaic word "gamla" can mean camel, a large rope and a beam. What it
means in a text depends upon context. Here be believes that "rope" was
meant, especially since there do exist large needles, five or seven inches
long, which *could* accomodate a rope if one tries hard enough.

Is he right? I don't know. If his facts are accurate even a bit, then it is
an interesting and useful interpretation. It also has the benefit of
allowing people to remain both ostensibly devout christians and rich.

But let's look at a couple of other passages that don't work quite so well
- passages that have always been problematic for christians.

Cursing the Fig Tree
And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: Adn
seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find
any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing by leaves; for
the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, NO man
eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it. Mark 11:
12-14.

Mr. Lamsa has quite a bit to say about this passage - not surprising, since
it doesn't put The Lord in a very good light. First, he attempts to provide
cultural context for such a situation by explaining that it is/was common
for a traveler to help himself to fruit growing on trees along a road.

But probably the most interesting point he tries to make is: "On his
arrival at the tree he was disappointed to find plenty of leaves but no
fruit. It was the season for fruit but there were none on the tree. Other
travelers on the road before Jesus had no doubt picked all the fruit.
Disappointment and hunger drew a casual remark or curse from Jesus..."

No doubt? I doubt.

There seems to be an attempt to shift the discussion by saying that it was
not the season for "fruit," but I think that it is clear that Mr. Lamsa is
trying to base his rehabilitation of Jesus' character on a direct
contradiction of the actual text. He might wish to think that it was not
the time for "fruit," but the text says that it was the time for "figs."


Swords
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment,
and buy one. Luke 22:36.

Mr. Lamsa's interpretation? "This is a proverbial saying concerning an
alarming situation. Jesus did not literally mean that his disciples were to
seel their cloaks and buy swords. This would have been a departure from his
Messianic interpretaion of the suffering servant, and it would have been
accepted as a signal for a revolution to establish the kingdom of Israel by
force. What Jesus really meant was that danager was approaching and that he
would soon be betrayed into the hands of the priests and be cruicified."

In other words, since a literal interpretation of the passage would
contradict his religious faith and theological position, then the passage
cannot be interpreted literally. It must be interpreted metaphorically.

What's more, he says this right after a whole paragraph explaining how
people in the East, in times of crisis, often sell posessions in order to
buy weapons - not only for defense, but because weapons hold value. Oddly
enough, *this* description not only supports a *literal* interpretation of
the passage above, but would put Jesus in a slightly better light because a
person could presume that Jesus only meant his disciples to buy weapons as
a preventative measure for bad economic times. That might not be the most
convincing explanation, but it is a bit better than the insistence that the
passage cannot be literal.

All in all, this is an "OK" book. There aren't any amazing revelations or
surprising insights. The agenda of interpretation can be seen above and is,
IMHO, typical of that of most evangelical apologists. I don't know of Mr.
Lamsa was an inerrentist, but he may well have been in some ways. It's a
book worth buying if it is on sale, especailly used, but I don't recommend
going out of your way or paying a high price for it.





Austin Cline; German Department; Princeton University
--- The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
      esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.

               - Nietzsche "The Dawn" (1881)

• Previous message: Was This a Real Christian?
• Next message: Book Review: Gospel Light by George M. Lamsa
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]