Book Review: Gospel Light by George M. Lamsa

Austin Cline Pioneer@infidels.org
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:06:42 -0500 (EST) (00887148402, v03110700b10623206338@[209.114.146.210]) 

My apologies for the lateness of this reply - I've been suffering serious
computer problems....




>LINDA

>First let me say thanks to Austin for his report. Allow me also to say that

>I did not join this list to promote George Lamsa -


AUSTIN
I'm sure we realize that. I didn't write the report with you specifically
in mind. I had set the book out already because I thought it worth talking
about. You just happened to bring it up first. An interesting coincidence,
since he hasn't been discussed here before, to my knowledge.

<snip>


>LINDA

>In his translation of the Bible there are several examples of the jots and

>tittles and the similarity between the words "rope" and "camel" are

>amazing... It is easy to see how one could get these confused...but in

>reality... what difference does this make to the object of the teaching?

>BUT it IS a good example of how easily words are exchanged and then given

>an entirely different meaning.  (It makes one question... how many other

>cases of the same have occured?)


AUSTIN
This is an important point. The one thing that I don't like is the
inability to check him on this. He might, after all, be making mistakes
himself.


>AUSTIN

<snip>


>>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."

>

>LINDA

>O Phooey - the argument for it "not being the season" was put forth by

>Lamsa as an example of the errors of the pulpit.


AUSTIN
Yeah? Where?

I re-read the passage in question and I did not see any point where he
stated that this explanation was simply a mistake that others make. Every
indication is given that this is what he believes. Where did you find that
he only offers this as a n "error of the pulpit." Perhaps I missed
something.

LINDA

>Lamsa stated in the same

>article you quoted from: "The leaves and fruit of a fig tree appear and

>fall at the same time. While the leaves are coming out the tiny figs also

>appear, and when they fall the fig season is over."


AUSTIN
So? That's his assertion. My point is that this assertion directly
contradicts the biblical text, namely that it was *not* the time of figs.
He says it was, the bible says it wasn't. That's the problem - he tries to
explain away a problem in the text by contradicting the text.

But if he is indeed correct, then the author or Mark is *incorrect*. Thus,
an error in the text. Either way, we have an error and a problem.


<snip>

LINDA

>Lamsa also offered this: "Cursing is an Oriental custom and it is often

>thoughtlessly done. Nearly always when an Easterner looks for something and

>fails to get it, he expresses his disappointment."  ---end quoting---


AUSTIN
I didn't address this point, but shall now.

Even if Lamsa is correct about this, it still doesn't "rehabilitate" Jesus.
Notice that Lamsa leaves out an important "epilogue" to the story - namley,
that when they returned on that road, then found that the tree had
"withered to its roots." That's a very dramatic result from a "thoughtless
curse."

So, I think we have three possible situations:

1. It wasn't really a thoughtless curse (just becuase it could have been
doesn't mean that it was).
2. It was a thoughtless curse, but Jesus is thoughtless with his god-powers
(some readings of the OT might support the idea of a thoughtless god).
3. It was a thoughtless curse, but Jesus didn't know his own strength (and
hence didn't know he was god).

I doubt that most believers would find any of those options very
acceptable. Do you?

LINDA

>We simply must expect that thier customs and mannerisms were different than

>those of the "moderns"... We might also accept that Christ was "human" if

>he was hungry and expected the tree to supply his need... I don't see any

>shame if "cursing" (there's another word we could debate) the tree.


AUSTIN
I do when the result of such cursing is the destruction of the tree, and I
am disturbed that Mr. Lamsa left that little detail out, as if it weren't
relevant. I also find it a shame if the cursing is done by someone who
should have known that they wouldn't find anything, which is a definite
possibility here and is, in fact, the situation which the bible seems to
describe.