Questions, Insights, & Responses

shared from and with users

#40 - The Lamsa Bible and an alleged Aramaic original text

by Robert Nguyen Cramer

This BibleTexts website administrator has very much enjoyed questions and insights that have been emailed to him ever since this site was launched in September of 1996. On this page I share with BibleTexts browsers a few of the questions, insights, and responses, so that we all can further learn from and with each other.


Question/insight #40: "I have read some of the papers on the Lamsa Bible. It is puzzling to me that his translation got the support of the Eastern Catholic Church which claimed to have obtained Aramaic version of the New Testament came "from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves." I read your postings but would like a more thorough two-sided view of the controversy surrounding the translation. The foreword clearly indicates the location and name of the Codex documents used by Lamsa,yet Metzger claims Lamsa wouldn't give the source of the Aramaic text used. What gives? Any suggestion where I can find out more about this? Something is very strange here."

Response #40:

Metzger's remarks only further document what I had already concluded before ever hearing his remarks. It's not unlikely that Metzger himself or his close colleagues confronted Lamsa directly about this. Knowing Bruce Metzger, I can't imagine him making reckless and unsubstantiated statements in public or even in private, especially considering how passionately he spoke out against the Lamsa Bible. He clearly had conviction, based upon first-hand knowledge. As I wrote in the Q&A section of the website at

Lamsa's claim that the Eastern Catholic Church "claimed to have obtained Aramaic version of the New Testament came 'from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves' " is entirely bogus, as is pointed out by Metzger at:

You can also do your own checking of the facts by taking the Lamsa Bible and using the BibleTexts webpage at:

to check whether Lamsa's Bible included many of the errors that are in the KJV. You will find that the Lamsa Bible does not look so good under such scrutiny. Many of those errors did not appear in any ancient manuscript or translation until the 16th century. For instance, see Mat 5:22, Mat 19:29, and many other verses. Metzger's words ring true. Lamsa's claims seem empty.

In the past, I, too, have had the validity of some much-loved biblical research books shot full of holes, but moving on from belief to understanding is always a good thing. Letting the facts lead us is certainly exhilarating and ultimately very liberating.


Copyright 1996-2002 Robert Nguyen Cramer