The mention of particular sources in this thread, Lamsa and Douglas-Klotz, highlights something that I think is very important when going about studies like this .. that ist the effect of bias. Everyone has bias, anyone who denies this is lying, either to themselves or to you. Since we cannot eliminate bias, the best we can do is recognize it, and I think that one of the ways to spot the good scholars is by how honest they are about their bias, which is often little more than their background or primary area of study.
For example, my background is in architecture. I understand history, art and even philosophy in terms of where they connect to architecture. These connections are a big deal to me because of how important architecture is to me and simply because of how much I know about architecture and its history; however, while the connection and insight may be of great imortance to me, the real connection and impact is usually far less strong.
Even with good scholars, I expect the same. Look at Crossan and cross-cultural anthropology, or Borg and reinterpretation of normalcy. The same I also expect of Lamsa and Douglas-Klotz. The Peschitta is a 5th c. translation of the Septuagint into Aramaic, but not the Aramaic of Jesus's time, but rather Late Aramaic which supplanted it around the year 200. Our enthusiasm for the insights given by a closer look at the Peschitta must be tempered by the fact that it is similar, but not the same language as Jesus, that it is a redaction of the Greek that we already have by an area of Christendom known for Nestorianism, Monophysitism and Adoptionism. Likewise, the insights of Douglas-Klotz must be considered in light of his background in a gnostic-leaning tradition of Islam.
Though it may seems otherwise, this is not meant to discredit these sources, merely to offer an observation on perspective. There is an old saying, when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. We rarely find what is actually there, but rather .. we find what we are looking for.
bias
For example, my background is in architecture. I understand history, art and even philosophy in terms of where they connect to architecture. These connections are a big deal to me because of how important architecture is to me and simply because of how much I know about architecture and its history; however, while the connection and insight may be of great imortance to me, the real connection and impact is usually far less strong.
Even with good scholars, I expect the same. Look at Crossan and cross-cultural anthropology, or Borg and reinterpretation of normalcy. The same I also expect of Lamsa and Douglas-Klotz. The Peschitta is a 5th c. translation of the Septuagint into Aramaic, but not the Aramaic of Jesus's time, but rather Late Aramaic which supplanted it around the year 200. Our enthusiasm for the insights given by a closer look at the Peschitta must be tempered by the fact that it is similar, but not the same language as Jesus, that it is a redaction of the Greek that we already have by an area of Christendom known for Nestorianism, Monophysitism and Adoptionism. Likewise, the insights of Douglas-Klotz must be considered in light of his background in a gnostic-leaning tradition of Islam.
Though it may seems otherwise, this is not meant to discredit these sources, merely to offer an observation on perspective. There is an old saying, when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. We rarely find what is actually there, but rather .. we find what we are looking for.