Still - the OSB is more Orthodox than Lamsa's paraphrase. At the least - OSB has been entirely under the direction of Orthodox hierarchy, cooperatively translated by many scholars, translated by and for Orthodox in an Orthodox worldview. How Lamsa's translation could be *anything* but worse? With it one has a Syncretist/Protestant private translation without the blessing or direction of any bishop translated by and for Heterodox or non-Christians. Again - if one wants Syriac, better to use Murdoch in interim, learn Syriac, get degrees in it, then with the blessing of real Syriac bishops - join in translating the Syriac into English *within* the Church. One cannot translate separated from the Church (translation *is* interpretation.)
Oh - and one can't just conflate East Syriac, West Syriac, Aramaic and Christian Aramaic. They are different languages - not just dialects. The common source is postulated West Semitic - of which Hebrew is a member. Aramaic is a pre-Christian pagan language. Christian Aramaic was a Palestinian language that has never been literary (no written documents) and only survives amongst Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Catholics (terms I use with precision) in Maloula, Syria. The two Syriac languages have as their formal literary component, origins in the dialect of Aramaic used in Edessa - far, far from Palestine. That West and East Syriac diverged is due to isolation - the East was under the oppressive Persian Empire, cut off from Palestine and the Roman Empire. West Syriac, however, was spoken within the Empire and in the Levant - alongside Greek. We also have Judeo-Aramaic of Palestine and the related Samaritan language. The vernacular Judeo-Aramaic (such as once spoken in Safed) is close to spoken Christian Aramaic, but quite different from Talmudic Aramaic (the literary language of Babylon - ie, Rabbinic Judaism.)
It is true, however, that with linguistics the situation is more complicated than simple 'genetic lineage' (consider English, which is genetically Western Germanic - but shares grammar, structure, phonemes, and the bulk of vocabulary with the Romance languages.)
The bottom line - there is no reliable English translation from Syriac. No matter - in English, one already has far more acceptable translations from an Orthodox pov than Lamsa. Murdock has a start towards a complete translation from the Syriac, but the fact is: the Syriacs have not until the past decade seen a reason for English language at all. Syriac itself (not English) is still primarily the language in use (along with Malayalam - the actual language of the Malankara church.) The English Syriac liturgy is only about a decade old now - Scripture is part of liturgy.
So - as of yet, no Bishop has approved Lamsa - if one does, however, it will provide the basis for future heresy and schism as erroneous ideas of Lamsa's (not inherent in the texts themselves, but of the author's private interpretation) could very well spread, take root, and cause much damage.
Orthodox bishops, however, *have* approved other English translations - primarily KJV, Douay-Rheims, and RSV. Errors of translation in them are far fewer or drastic than in Lamsa (being issues of accuracy or emphasis rather than absolute opposites) - and they descend from the same sources. In fact, using a traditional English bible, one can realize that what they read is the produce of original translation into Western language (Latin and English) from both Greek *and* Hebrew/Syriac texts. St. Jerome was unique in basing his Latin Vulgate (to replace the Vetus Vulgate or Old Latin multiplicity of translations) on not just Greek texts, but on Semitic texts. Thus, the Vulgate as a comparative text became the basis of future English translations. The traditional English translations (KJV and D-R) are inheritors not just of the Vulgate text - the basis of their translations - but also of St. Jerome's method, as the translators of both again returned and compared with the texts accepted by the Eastern Churches. The same was done again with the RSV as an updated text (particularly comparison with Syriac texts) - and unlike former translations into English, had participation and approval of Orthodox scholars and hierarchy.
Bottom line - if one is buying into 'purism' (one can only have a Syriac text, or a Slavonic text, etc.) - one can't find everything in English yet. Murdock is the best one can do - otherwise, one has to learn the language (Syriac, Malayalam.) Lamsa has *too many problems* to be of worth, and enough twisting of Scripture to be grounding for heresy for those who might be mislead by his idiosyncracies. If one simply wants a 'purely Orthodox' translation - the best one can do is either the Buena Vista fresh translation, or the OSB project corrected text. There is no ideal English Orthodox text. However, for those Orthodox who do have a history and tradition of English language usage ... the KJV, Douai/Douay-Rheims, RSV, and corrected NKJV have all been approved by bishops. The NRSV alone of standard translations has been condemned (by the OCA synod) - probably because no one has bothered to let the Orthodox hierarchy judge Lamsa. And really, before 'selling Lamsa' to oneself or others - I'd suggest just that - get your bishop's full opinion on the matter. Anything less isn't Orthodox.