Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Setting the record straight
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Shlama l'kown b'Shema,

I have posted the rules and definitions of plagiarism before, though they may have gotten lost
by a moderator's deletion of one of my posts, so here it is again, from turnitin.com - a web site which specializes on the subject and has software that tests documents for plagiarism:

Quote:Plagiarism FAQ
...11. What is the "public domain?"
Works that are no longer protected by copyright, or never have been, are considered "public domain." This means that you may freely borrow material from these works without fear of plagiarism, provided you make proper attributions....

(EDITED BY MODERATOR)

BTW, Lamsa's 1933 publication copyright expired last year. It is now public domain. One can find his files for his translation on the internet for the entire Bible and download them free of charge.

Anyone translating holy scripture should hold himself/herself to the highest of ethical and moral standards of accountability, and should be held to those high standards by potential readers of that translation. Complete honesty and openness is essential to the translator, so that there can be no question as to the nature of the work. All sources will be thoroughly cited and credited as such. If the work is a revision of another translation, that should be stated clearly in the title and in the preface, with a detailed explanation of the basic reason for the revision and how it differs from the source text.

Even when proper attribution is given to the sources, the copied material should not be too copious (a majority of the new work), as stated above, or the author may be charged with plagiarism.

The author of a Bible translation cannot be too careful in this matter; easily he or she can be caught up in the temptation to get a book published as quickly as possible and take unethical shortcuts in the process.

It is irrelevant if "I posted this about my sources", or "I got permission from so and so", when considering whether a work is plagiarized. Plagiarism is not necessarily copyright infringement.
Plagiarism is copying someone else's words, music or artistic material (intellectual property) and presenting them as one's own. The book itself should include proper attribution to the authors whose work is used: "This book is a substantial revision of such and such text written by so and so in such and such places."
In other words, the potential customer as well as the actual customer should know what the nature of the book is, especially in the case of a translation of scripture.
Is it a fresh translation, or is it a revision of another translation?
This must be plainly stated up front.

I did not make up the rules above quoted, and when we think clearly about this, common sense
dictates that these standards are essential.

If I were to take George Lamsa's or John Wesley Etheridge's translation (each of which is now public domain) and simply republish it with my name on it, would that be ethical?

Let our definitions and standards be complete and high; at least as high as the secular world's
standards; certainly not lower. We cannot afford or tolerate sloppiness in attitude or method; nor would we see what we can get away with. Our standard must honor and please the true Author of scripture, and reflect the excellence of The Most High. Less than than can only bring us shame, and displeasure to Him.


Dave Bauscher


Quote:If I were to take George Lamsa's or John Wesley Etheridge's translation (each of which is now public domain) and simply republish it with my name on it, would that be ethical?

Shlama Akhi David Bauscher:
Let's be clear. I copied verbatim the translation and notes of John Wesley Etheridge and compiled them with my transcription of the Khabouris Codex. I present this work on <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m --> as my original compilation. I did this to preserve the reading of the late John Wesley Etheridge as well as to make the reading of the Khabouris Codex easier for the novice. Do you consider my motive for doing this work to be unethical?
Our beloved brother Andrew Roth has compiled his own copious notes along side of the selective Peshitta text (Khabouris and UBS) and readings of Dr. James Murdock, Paul Younan and his own translational efforts. Andrew gave the heads up in the Introduction of MARI.

To retain as much consistency as possible, Paul Younan's translation has been compared from Matthew 1 to Acts 15 and James Murdock's translation for the remainder, each word has been cross-checked with Aramaic. In some cases, both sources are woven together into this translation, under a unifying editorial vision and approach.

Isn't it clearly stated that the work of MARI is a unifying editorial vision in Andrew Roth's own words. Then he lists the approach.

Do any of us agree 100% on all topics. No, of course not, but let's listen to one another with respect as each one of us attempts to put in his/her own words the eternal WORD of Alaha. I think it's important, even paramount to respond with gentleness (a humble spirit) and personal integrity while standing corrected when shown to be in error. There is no need for base expressions of jealousy, anger and wrath when the benefit of our sharing is spiritual maturity.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
gbausc Wrote:BTW, Lamsa's 1933 publication copyright expired last year. It is now public domain. One can find his files for his translation on the internet for the entire Bible and download them free of charge.

Huh? Can you cite your sources for this?

The info I found is that the copyright on Lamsa's 1933 publication was renewed, which means the copyright has not yet expired:

Quote:With generous permission from the Aramaic Bible Society - August 2005. Please do not copy these documents as they are still under copyright...

Hopefully Lamsa's translation will be released into the public domain soon, like the Younan, Murdock and Etheridge translations.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/dr_george_lamsa_bible.htm">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicN ... _bible.htm</a><!-- m -->

Quote:Copyright Status of Recent Bible Translatiosn

This page is a record of the Bible translations published between the years of 1923 and 1964. These years are known as the transitional period in U.S.A. copyright law. Everything published before 1923 in the United States is in the public domain, everything published after 1963 with a proper copyright notice will be locked into a copyrighted status for several more decades.

Any book published in the United States between 1922 and 1964, that was not renewed in a timely manner has lapsed into the public domain. This page is a record of my copyright research regarding Bibles published during this time period. It should not be regarded as legal advice.

Key

Copyright Not Renewed
Status Unknown
Copyright Renewed...

1957. George M. Lamsa, The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts. Containing the Old and New Testaments, translated from the Peshitta, the authorized Bible of the Church of the East. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Co., 1957. The New Testament was published in 1940. Based on the Syriac Peshitta version.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.thedcl.org/support/pd-bibles/pd-bibles.html">http://www.thedcl.org/support/pd-bibles/pd-bibles.html</a><!-- m -->

Quote:Lamsa - Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts
Scripture quotations marked Lamsa are from the Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, George M. Lamsa, Copyright ?? 1933, 1939, 1940, 1957 A. J. Holman Company.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/other.htm">http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/other.htm</a><!-- m -->
gbausc Wrote:Anyone translating holy scripture should hold himself/herself to the highest of ethical and moral standards of accountability, and should be held to those high standards by potential readers of that translation. Complete honesty and openness is essential to the translator, so that there can be no question as to the nature of the work. All sources will be thoroughly cited and credited as such. If the work is a revision of another translation, that should be stated clearly in the title and in the preface, with a detailed explanation of the basic reason for the revision and how it differs from the source text.

Andrew has:

a) been completely honest, it's not his problem if you don't understand what "compilation" and "edited" (in the title page) means.
b) given proper attribution even to the satisfaction of one of the original authors (Paul Younan). Just who are you to say HOW Andrew should properly attribute Paul? There are no laws, whether written or unwritten on HOW someone should attribute the original author of a PD work, "in the intro/preface" is YOUR definition. Just because Andrew's definition on HOW to make proper attribution may differ from yours, it doesn't mean that his is wrong and yours is right, it's a PD work - there are no rules.

If it was your PD interlinear that Andrew used as a source, and you felt that he hadn't given you proper attribution in the preface/intro, then I would be condemning Andrew for plagiarizing you, and I wouldn't object you suing him for it. BUT it's Paul's work and he has said over and over that Andrew didn't plagiarize him - that should suffice. The fact is your accusations are without basis.

gbausc Wrote:[i]Even when proper attribution is given to the sources, the copied material should not be too copious (a majority of the new work), as stated above, or the author may be charged with plagiarism.

Wrong, that only applies when the source is still under copyright - in which case the author can only quote or copy within the limit stipulated in the copyright notice, however much it may be. If the copyright notice says that all the work can be copied without written permission (and I've never heard of such a case), then what you wrote above would make sense - don't take advantage of the author's generosity.

But this makes no sense when the source is PD because the law says that PD works can be copied freely, without permission and without limitation, that's how everyone understands PD, how else do you explain the countless revisions of the KJV? There is NO limit to the amount one can copy from a PD source. It's not Andrew's problem if YOU think that the AENT reads "too much" like Murdock and Younan - that is YOUR opinion and nothing more.

Now lemme ask you a question: DO YOU THINK THAT THE AMOUNT THAT YOU, RYAN & ALBION COPIED FROM THE AENT & POSTED ON AMAZON IS "TOO COPIOUS"? I DO!

gbausc Wrote:[i]The author of a Bible translation cannot be too careful in this matter; easily he or she can be caught up in the temptation to get a book published as quickly as possible and take unethical shortcuts in the process.[i]

You still think PD makes no difference, haven't you been listening? It does. If Andrew felt any pressure to get his translation published "as quickly as possible" perhaps it was because of Albion's constant nagging: "17 days to go until MARI/PEACE", "5 days to go until MARI/PEACE" - search through his posts to see what I'm talking about.

gbausc Wrote:[i]It is irrelevant if "I posted this about my sources", or "I got permission from so and so", when considering whether a work is plagiarized. Plagiarism is not necessarily copyright infringement.

Fine believe what you want; should you take Andrew to court for this, I bet the only opinion the judge will be interested in is Paul's, as his interlinear was one of his sources, and Murdock, well we don't need to go there. You on the other hand made no contribution to Andrew's work whatsoever, Andrew never made any use of your work, so I doubt the judge will be interested in anything you have to say.

gbausc Wrote:Plagiarism is copying someone else's words, music or artistic material (intellectual property) and presenting them as one's own. The book itself should include proper attribution to the authors whose work is used: "This book is a substantial revision of such and such text written by so and so in such and such places."

In other words, the potential customer as well as the actual customer should know what the nature of the book is, especially in the case of a translation of scripture.

Is it a fresh translation, or is it a revision of another translation?

This must be plainly stated up front.

And it is, you just refuse to accept that the attribution is proper just because it conflicts with your definition. Here is an example of Andrew's attribution IN THE INTRODUCTION:

Quote:...To retain as much consistency as possible, Paul Younan's translation has been compared from Matthew 1 to Acts 15 and James Murdock's translation for the remainder, each word has been cross-checked with Aramaic. In some cases, both sources are woven together into this translation, under a unifying editorial vision and approach. That approach includes the following:

*In places where James Murdock used the later Western Peshitto readings, the Eastern originals have been restored. In places where a more accurate or detailed translation was required, than chosen by my mentors, the preferred readings were substituted for this edition...

Who are these "mentors"? Can't you see that they are mentioned in the paragraph above BY NAME? Andrew calls Paul and Murdock HIS MENTORS, how can that not count as "proper attribution"???

It's not Andrew's fault if you didn't read or understand this correctly. You, Albion & Ryan don't like Andrew's translation, that's fine, you don't have to, but you cannot accuse him of plagiarism. Paul & Murdock's NTs are PD works, Andrew attributes his work to them, the WAY he did so may not satisfy you but your opinion is not the one that matters because you are not the ones he needed to credit, you're just unsatisfied customers. You have no case, that is the truth - that's life.

gbausc Wrote:I did not make up the rules above quoted, and when we think clearly about this, common sense
dictates that these standards are essential.

Most of the rules don't apply to this particular situation which I why I deleted them - that IS common sense.

gbausc Wrote:If I were to take George Lamsa's or John Wesley Etheridge's translation (each of which is now public domain) and simply republish it with my name on it, would that be ethical?

I agree, it would be but it's already been proven to you over and over again that Andrew hasn't done this. You think he did, so what? That's YOUR opinion, just because it's your opinion, it doesn't mean it's fact.

gbausc Wrote:Let our definitions and standards be complete and high; at least as high as the secular world's
standards; certainly not lower. We cannot afford or tolerate sloppiness in attitude or method; nor would we see what we can get away with. Our standard must honor and please the true Author of scripture, and reflect the excellence of The Most High. Less than than can only bring us shame, and displeasure to Him.

I agree how about we start with your review? You say "THIS IS PLAGIARISM!!!!", how about you change this to "I THINK this is plagiarism" or "In MY opinion this is plagiarism".

Of course Andrew wants to please his customers but he knows he can't please everyone, you should know this too as you yourself are an author and there have been many complaints about your translation. And how did you handle them? Many members here complained that your Peshitta ELS codes weren't real but did that move you change what you state in your NT about them? No, you fought their accusations like a zealot, and you didn't change what you stated about them in your NT, you still state you have the perfect Peshitta text even though others who are more knowledgeable on the Peshitta have told you otherwise. So you've got a nerve to persist in your hypocrisy!

I'm not the only one here you can see through your "holier than thou" smoke screen, you haven't convinced me that your intentions are noble:

Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (JPS)
Shlama Christina and Stephen,

Well stated, both of you. The bottom line is that Dave appeared out of nowhere after several months of being MIA, having sworn off his membership here. And the reason for his return? Not to build up our common work, to educate or even to say Hi. He comes out of the woodwork only to tear down the work of another.

His intentions and motivation are clear. So are Albion's. Ryan, I have no clue about....I barely knew him. Perhaps he is simply confused.

In any case, you're not going to change this man's mind. Dave had asked me a while back to give him a review so that he could publish it along with his translation. That review never came, primarily because I knew he was not qualified to have completed this work ... but also because as a clergyman in the CoE I cannot give sanction to a translation of the Peshitta. That would, at least implicitly, give the appearance that the CoE has approved of a translation.

Therefore I cannot give a review of Andrew's work on Amazon, although I do believe from what I have read so far that it is a very faithful and well done compilation of the primary materials supplemented with his own research on various topics.
Fortunately the evidence for peshitta priority is so good that even a bunch of immature,sensitive, vengeful , unchristian, unspiritual and dimwitted cry babies like ourselves (with one or two unsporting exceptions) can probably do the job. <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: -->
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all---

As some of you may know, three former members of this forum have tried to smear my hard work on the AENT. For those who may be interested in my response, please follow the link. Todah!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.therefinersfire.org/aent_critics.htm">http://www.therefinersfire.org/aent_critics.htm</a><!-- m -->

Andrew the very first two sentences on the link you provided here say.

Quote:Every literary work of art has its critics, and the Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) is no exception. The work of Andrew Gabriel Roth, who translated the Khabouris Codex (the oldest New Testament ever discovered, which was written in all Aramaic) has, of late, been attacked by various people, including a man who has produced his own NT version, Rev. Dave Bauscher.

If I read just that I would have thought that you did in fact do your own translation. Can you see that it might be confusing?
Shlama Akhi Judge,

No, I don't see it. I don't see it because apparently all this evidence, including what I actually wrote in the title plage, the intro, the footnotes, etc, that somehow is not clear enough? In this case, I am offering an honest and total window into the process of AENT.

That intro paragraph was written by my editor Shali (the webmaster of Refiners FIre), but even if you only went to that site, all you had to do was read the rest of the article on that very page. I don't understand why that's unreasonable. The full methodology of HOW AENT is brought about is on the same web page. And Khabouris is translated by me--you simply have to see the footnotes in AENT that mention that. JUST BECAUSE I USE PUBLIC DOMAIN SOURCES IN BASE TEXT DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T TRANSLATE TOO. MY TRANSLATION SKILLS CAN ALSO VALIDATE YOUNAN AND MURDOCK, AS I HAVE ALSO SAID.

This text is not just pasted Younan or Murdock. It is Murdock, Younan and Khabouris and 1905-20 compared and cross checked and validated by me line by line, in Aramaic and English. It is footnotes and essays by me that don't exist in any other version of the NT. It is an Aramaic text that, rather than just be the 1905-20 Critical Edition as if that were original, restores the Eastern readings that were taken out and validates in hundreds of places the interchangeability of readings between Khabouris and 1905-20. In order to do that, one must be able to TRANSLATE from Aramaic to English. So just looking at footnotes you have these kinds:

1) Straight carry-over--Paul Younan or James Murdock's original note is carried over and attributed as (PY) or (JM).

2) PY/JM expanded note: The reference starts with PY or JM but is expanded on by my own translation and/or commentary.

3) Original study notes: More than a 1000 of these are MY NOTES from beginning to end. Why aren't those taken into account?

4) Khabouris/Critical comparision: Readings between the two are given, assessed for consistency and accuracy and a reasoning given for my personal preference of one over the other. In other cases, I say clearly that more than one meaning is possible, and leave the reader to make up his or her mind. Again, the title page says "compilation, annotation and translation".

5) Pointer notes--refer to other Scripture, previous books of mine or a topic in the appendixes. AND I HAVE YET TO SEE MY CRITICS DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ALMOST 400 PAGES OF MATERIAL WRITTEN BY ME OTHER THAN THE TRANSLATION IN THE AENT VOLUME.

The bottom line is Judge, if people can read just that paragraph but somehow not read or ignore the volumes of other info that is in AENT itself, that seems to be very selective as a method. My critics make no sense. FIrst they tell me I didn't say these things when I clearly did, completely and in many places. Then when I or others produce that proof the knock I get is "expecting people to read all these previous posts is not reasonable". "all these posts" however are simply the supporting documentation of what is in AENT on the website.

Plus I am here too remember? If there was a question, and there have been some, anyone could have emailed me at anytime and I would answer, as I have here.
Rafa Wrote:Your attacking Andrew's NT due to ulterior motives Dave (your refusal of the particular Christology Andrew embraces as well as his position on Torah and many other issues). Your letting us down with this behavior, your letting us down. Even IF what you believe is true, you spoke in an extremely brazen tone to Andrew ("have you sold your soul", "You have committed theft", etc.- Do you say that to a brother?) I respect you and your NT and know your sincere, but this wasn't a good thing.

I had always prayed Dave would eventually return and grace us once again with his presence, but not like this.
Shlama,


i was curious about something after reading the accusations of plagarism on these pages....

i do my own translating for both OT / NT from the Hebrew and Aramaic for my teachings i present each week, so i have page after page of verses that i've translated without consulting first any other translation.

so i went to this essayrater website and entered in just 5 pages of my personal translations. guess what? i've plagarized the Hebrew and Aramaic, it seems, for so the program is telling me my sources are unoriginal. hmmm, how can Scripture be unoriginal?

so i'm just wondering if Mr. Bauscher were to insert his translations into this program if the same would take place? if so, then these accusations are unfair even in that respect. i don't own a copy of Bauscher's work, so i don't know, but i would at least suspect that he would get a failing report from this essayrater like i did.


just something worth pondering....


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama Akhi Judge,

No, I don't see it. I don't see it because apparently all this evidence, including what I actually wrote in the title plage, the intro, the footnotes, etc, that somehow is not clear enough?


Well I think the point is that even your webmaster is referring to it as a translation. Even Dawid, who seems very reasonable, thought he was buying a new translation. One cant read the book unless one first buys it!
Perhaps you could have been clearer in what you were doing, in what you were selling?
You don't seem to consider that maybe the people complaining missed it because you yourself weren't clear enough. But instead you accuse dave of being anti-semtic, without providing any evidence at all?
What is a lurker supposed to think?

Maybe you chould have, from the word go, taken the criticism on board, sent a refund to those who were upset and made it clearer on Amazon, for example, what the book was.
I asked whether you could see that it might be confusing. Yet from your reply you cant see that it might have been confusing.
On the other hand you are sure (sure enough to make the accustaion) that dave is doing this because he is anti-semitic!


Personally I think without reading it your work is fantastic! A great contribution to what is going on here at peshitta.org. I just dont think you are doing your self any favours reacting like this.

Why not just say.."yes, technically it may be plagiarism, under some narrow defintions..but so what?...and if anyone feels they were misled here is a full refund"

The situation now might be quite different.
Burning one Wrote:Shlama,


i was curious about something after reading the accusations of plagarism on these pages....

i do my own translating for both OT / NT from the Hebrew and Aramaic for my teachings i present each week, so i have page after page of verses that i've translated without consulting first any other translation.

so i went to this essayrater website and entered in just 5 pages of my personal translations. guess what? i've plagarized the Hebrew and Aramaic, it seems, for so the program is telling me my sources are unoriginal. hmmm, how can Scripture be unoriginal?

so i'm just wondering if Mr. Bauscher were to insert his translations into this program if the same would take place? if so, then these accusations are unfair even in that respect. i don't own a copy of Bauscher's work, so i don't know, but i would at least suspect that he would get a failing report from this essayrater like i did.


just something worth pondering....


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Hmm... interesting indeed <!-- sConfusedly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="Confusedly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sConfusedly: --> . There's a way to find out, his gospels can be downloaded for free here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lulu.com/content/801962">http://www.lulu.com/content/801962</a><!-- m -->. Perhaps we should test Murdock & Etheridge too, seems this "essay rater" program is a dud, oops!
I entered 2 chapters of Murdock, Etheridge & Bauscher into essay rater, and the result was the same for all 3: "Unoriginal Text Detected", it looks like those AENT stats that Bauscher posted are worthless <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Shlama all,

"If one wants to hit the dog, he will have no problem finding a stick." Translation into English of a proverb I knew from my youth.
That's how I see it. Sad - instead of cooperation, support and love - judgmental and destructive accusations. Is this how you build Kingdom of G*d? Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost? Or Truth you say is what bothers you? Really?

This whole business made me reread the Introduction to AENT and now I'm wondering what would satisfy Mr Bauscher? What should be written instead of phrases like "many excellent resources to draw; the task was to unify the language style and approach, cross-checking" and "in some cases both sources are woven together into this translation, under a unifying editorial vision and approach". Oh, I see, it should say: "Readers beware - this is plagiarism! I have plagiarized this and that, and please do not look at the footnotes and do not read apendices (or ixes, if you like)", right?

I'm also wondering why Mr Bauscher has left this forum and his critical review appeared on Amazon and not in on of the topics here, e.g. <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1985">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1985</a><!-- l --> first ? If I have something against a brother from my own or some other congregation shouldn't I first talk to him or his leaders instead of going to the market square and shouting about the matter? Hmm, strange.

I had no special expectaions about AENT so I was not disappointed. The book was a bit dear but worth it, so won't be requesting a refund. Actually, I find it quite useful as it is exactly what I like, original and a translation on facing pages and footnotes with additional explanations, any sensible and faithful translation (or edition of translations) would do beacasue if you want to dig deep you always go to the original yourself.

Now, I valued greatly BOTH Mr Roth's and Mr Bauscher's past input in this forum and advancing Peshitta primacy and I have a question - is there any way forward in this conflict, any compromise for both sides, any unity that can be found in the Lord Yeshua? Other than Akhan Andrew publicly humbling himself and saying, yes, it was plagirism? Cause this cleary ain't gonna happen as it does not seem to be the case ...

With peace and blessings,
Jerzy
Im a great believer that almost any situation can be turned into a good outcome , and maybe that is the case here. Is it possible that the marketing of Andrews work can be improved?
The more I look at it I think there are some really great things about this work that can be emphasised more strongly. Otto's review on Amazon seems, to me to the the best marketing and explanation of the book.
Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5