Language Studies

Aramaic Thoughts

Idioms in the Bible - Part 5

In the introduction to the little book Idioms in the Bible Explained, George Lamsa makes a statement that needs badly to be corrected. After indicating that he used the KJV as the source for the idioms quoted, he says he did so for two reasons. First, at the time the KJV was the English version most widely used. Second, he says that they translated more faithfully than other versions. As a subset of this last statement he says, "They translated many Eastern idioms and metaphors literally, not knowing their true meaning." This last statement is completely false. Any examination of the commentary works of the translators of the KJV and their contemporaries makes it clear that they were quite conversant with the Eastern idioms. There are frequent references in those commentaries not only to Greek and Hebrew, but to Aramaic and Syriac as well. Further, in the comments on particular verses, these authors indicate the meanings of these idioms and figures.

What Lamsa failed to recognize was the philosophy of translation adopted by the translators of the KJV. Their purpose was to present to the reader so far as possible, the original. They did not consider it the responsibility of the translator to render Hebrew and Greek idioms into English idioms. Nor did they consider it their responsibility as translators to render Hebrew and Greek figurative language into English literalisms. Rather, it is the responsibility of the reader, and the preacher, to seek to understand and explain the significance of figures and metaphors in the Bible. Lamsa has taken them to task for ignorance, when he himself failed to understand their intent and purpose.

As Lamsa moves into a discussion of idioms in the New Testament, he seems to have adopted a curious definition of idiom. He lists Matt 1:19 "He knew her not" as an idiom meaning "he had not had intercourse with her." That is correct. It is an idiom, and that is what it means. He then lists Matt 1:23 "a virgin" as an idiom, explained as "a girl who has known no man." He is correct about the meaning of the word "virgin," but it is no idiom. It is a literalism. It is simply a definition of the word "virgin."

Lamsa then moves to Matt 2:9, and the phrase "following the star." This he explains is an idiom meaning "walking in the direction of the stars." This is absurd. The magi saw a literal heavenly light, which qualified as a star in the broad sense of the term. They followed that star, whatever it might have been to Jerusalem, and then to Bethlehem. They were apparently able to point it out to Herod and those attendants he called upon. There is then nothing idiomatic or figurative about the statement. In fact, what the text actually says is not that they followed the star, but rather "the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was." That is what Matt 2:9 says in English. That is what it says in Greek; and that is what it says in Syriac. There is no idiom here; it was a literal star that literally went before them.

Further, the question has to be asked, what can Lamsa’s "explanation" (walking in the direction of the stars) possibly mean? Does it mean that the magi walked up into the air toward the heavens? To suggest it is silly, but what other sense can be made of Lamsa’s words?

Copyright Statement
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2024© Benjamin Shaw. 'Aramaic Thoughts' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/aramaic-thoughts.html  2) 'Aramaic Thoughts' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.