Obviously, without a computer it would be hard to do a line by line comparison. One important difference is in the Lord's prayer:
Instead of, "Lead us not into temptation," Lamsa's translation reads, "Do not let us enter into temptation."
Kinda significant, isn't it? One would think God wouldn't do such a thing as to lead us into opportunities to sin, but who knows?
Then there are Christ's pivotal words from the cross, as related in Matthew and Mark:
MAT 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
MAR 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
The usual interpretation I hear is that Christ was citing David's Psalm 22 describing how lots were cast for his clothes, etc.
PSA 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
This passage has always troubled me, even when I was a young child. Why would God, in his final moment of triumph over pain, having lived a perfect life, having endured a brutal crucifixion to the end without ever forsaking His role as a human, offering a real example of what we were given in God's image and how far we fall short, who we could be, how far and how completely He meant what He had always said about forbearance, tolerance, and forgiveness... WHY would he ask that one thing that could even allow the slightest doubt about who He was, why He was here, and His unity with God the Father?
As I said, it's always troubled me. I am certain that whole books have been written on the topic.
Lamsa's translation of Matthew reads (I'm not going to type it all), "My God, my God, for this I was spared," and in the margin it reads "sent" as an alternative for "spared." IOW, by Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, Christ was declaring the mission for which He came to have served its purpose; He had attained His goal: to have completed His life as a human without error.
Kinda pivotal, isn't it? One would think that a distinction this important, a difference this huge, would be the topic of extensive discussion within the Church. Frankly, during my rearing in both Catholic and Episcopalian churches (I went to school at the one and worshipped at the other) I never heard such a discussion. I did ask the priests a couple of times, but never got a satisfactory answer. They usually just babbled chatechism, to the discerning child bearing all the appearance of speaking as they had been told to speak without a clue as to why.
I have seen some rather vitriolic exchanges about Lamsa's translation, but never an extended discussion of this crucial verse. Frankly, not being an expert in the origins of either translation, I am not sure such would do me any good. We have used the Lamsa version along with a concordance as contextual cross references to clarify passages of the KJV. Until we learn better, we just muddle along.
Very interesting. I was always taught that when Christ took the sins of the world apon himself while on the cross, God the Father could no longer look at him so he turned his back. Hence the cry.