This is upheld despite all the manuscript evidence that contradicts his theories.   Although the language principally spoken by Jesus was Aramaic almost all Jews were bi or tri lingual. This is even upheld by the fact that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into the Greek language ( Septuagint) 200 years before Christ. The Aramaic text (the Pershitta) is a later 4^th century Syriac translation,  a Semitic language used in Syria. All the earliest manuscripts are of the Greek and the majority of manuscript scholars agree. Lamsa intentionally ignores this stating that Greek was never the language of Palestine saying" Josephus states that even though a number of Jews had tried to learn the language of the Greeks, hardly any of them were succeeded." (Lamsa p.9) This is not what Josephus said in his antiquities of the Jews. "What Josephus wrote was that he had failed to attain precision in the pronunciation of Greek. "Lamsa also claims" Indeed the teaching of Greek was forbidden by Jewish rabbis. It was said that it was better for a man to give his child meat of swine than to teach him the language of the Greek's." (Lamsa p.10) (Cited in Greek , Hebrew Aramaic, or Syriac? A critique of the claims of G.M Lamsa by Edwin M.Yamauchi)

Then how does he explain the Septuagint? All this is contradicted by the facts of Greek manuscript evidence found in the Quamrun caves and quotes from the Septuagint in the New testament which are more in number than quotes from the Masoretic text (the Hebrew)

Rabbi Hillel’s school is where Paul learned under Rabbi Gamaliel who was the grandson of Rabbi Hillel. It is a fact the Paul who was versed in the Greek language and philosophy as well as Judaism learning this from his schooling. He certainly did not speak to those on Mars Hill in the Hebrew language which was reserved for and exclusive to the Jews. Neither did he converse to the Roman rulers in Aramaic.

Proof that the Jews were bilingual, in AD 132-135 we find those who were nationals rebelling in Bar Kochba’s side wrote in Greek as well as Hebrew and Aramaic.

In 250 B.C. the Hebrew Scriptures were translated to Greek. The New Testament is written in Koine Greek (Common Greek), there were 4 languages used in the New Testament times Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, of which Greek was the dominant language. We find the inscription over Christ as being the King of the Jews was written in Greek, Hebrew, Latin. The Greek language was spread by Alexander the Great after he defeated the Persian empire 323 B.C. He saw it as his divine mission to spread the Greek culture throughout the world ( he was Macedonian a Greek). His Hellenistic empire spread to Asia minor, Persia, India, Syria, Egypt, and Israel. He established 70 Greek cities of which half were in Israel. By 300 AD. from Alexander’s conquest Greek became the international language, the dominant language of Israel and the eastern world at the time of Christ.

John 12:20,23 Seems to strongly imply that Philip, Andrew and Jesus understood and spoke Greek as Greeks came up to worship.

When the Gospel writers quoted from the Old Testament it was mostly from the Greek Septuagint. EX: Isa.61:1 The Jews used Hebrew word patterns in the Greek. Acts and Hebrews used a blend of classical and Koine Greek. There are Aramaic and Hebrew words in the Greek, words that were transposed.

In Mk.7:24 when Jesus spoke to the Syrophoenician woman The Greek word for dogs had no correlation in Hebrew or Aramaic. If Jesus did not speak Greek than the writer used an unnatural expression in translating his words. In Jn.7:35 The Jews question Jesus about going to a place where they will not be able to find him "He is not going to the dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks. Its obvious that as the Son of God he had the ability to converse in different languages. In Jn. 21 Jesus uses two Greek words for love and tending the flock that cannot be reproduced in the Hebrew nor Aramaic language. So it was likely a conversation carried on in the Greek. When Jesus spoke to Pilate I don't think it was in Hebrew since he was a pagan unwilling to learn the language of the Jews.

Who is George Lamsa?

He was a man who was into psychic phenomenon, this alone should disqualify him from being a reputable source for the Scriptures. He denied the Trinity which is clearly expressed in his translation, which is why it is accepted by certain churches. This is why it is the most popular translation among the cults. He believed sin was error and he was a universalist believing all would be saved (not even the Iglesia ni Cristo church would accept this). He also believed the Holy Spirit was a influence or power. Like the Sadducee's he denies a belief in personal angels or demons. He also had a view of Christ as 2 persons in one body (Nestorian heresy which some trace to his upbringing) not 2 natures in Christ the one person. Lamsa also claimed to be the sole competent interpreter of the scriptures. "Moreover, the author was educated under the care of learned priests of the church of the east who knew no other language but Aramaic,..the author, through God's grace, is the only one with the knowledge of Aramaic, the bible customs and idioms, and the knowledge of the English language who has ever translated the Holy bible from the original Aramaic texts into English and written commentaries on it, and his translation is now in pleasingly wide use" (G. Lamsa More light on the Gospel (NY 1968). Certainly Iglesia would not agree with Lamsa's position on salvation since they teach one MUST join their Church to be saved. So why use a man who they would discredit for these things as well? Because He's one of  the few published authors they can find that can agree with their obtuse position.

In his book, "NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN," Dr. George Lamsa states, “Not a word of the Scriptures was originally written in Greek...the Scriptures were written in Aramaic.” This is a language only the Jews would speak.  Since the gospels were written to the Gentiles of that day for evangelistic purposes it is illogical to think they would have to learn a new language first to learn of Jesus is absurd. Greek was the universal language of the day (for the common people "Koine Greek"). If it was all first written in Aramaic he would then have to teach the Gentiles another language to be able to even read the Bible. To claim that ‘the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic means over 60 years and longer the apostles or other missionaries would have to teach the Gentiles this language, even when they were no longer in Israel. Hardly a tenable position to take.

Dr. Lamsa flawed concept of Aramaic primacy of the Bible affected his interpretations. Lamsa never produced any earlier Aramaic manuscripts that he referred to. Why? There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, only Greek documents.

 History and manuscript evidence show us that the Bible was written in the known language of the people, which was Greek.

 Lamsa translation  of John 1: 1 - 3
"The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. He was with God in the very beginning:
through him all existence came into being, no existence came into being apart from him"

Lamsa’s Christianity was not historic or biblical. He denied that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead. he claims that Christ rose with a "spiritual body,"Lamsa’s Second Coming is not a physical event, but a "spiritual" coming that will take place in the world's consciousness (not just believers): "The second coming of Jesus will be a spiritual coming, that is, he will come in a spiritual body, free from all physical limitations. Moreover, the people's consciousness will be raised to a spiritual level, so that every eye will see nothing but good. In other words, it will be a spiritual life and spiritual kingdom"(George M. Lamsa, More Light on the Gospel (New York: Doubleday, 1968), 151 (hereafter, More).

Lamsa spiritualized the Ascension as well as the Resurrection: “The ascension of Jesus was a spiritual transformation. Jesus rose up from death and was taken up into the heavenly realm in a spiritual body, freed from all physical limitation [i.e., nonphysical]. He was seen alive and ascending to heaven only by those whose spiritual vision had been strengthened by faith in him.” ⁽New, 7).

Lamsa interpretation = difficulties ahead difficulties will be overcome

Sources used- George Lamsa Christian Scholar or cultic torchbearer by John p. Juedes