Peshitta Forum

Full Version: My Review of Dave Bauscher's NT Translation
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Engrossing and useful! David Bauscher's THE ORIGINAL ARAMAIC NEW TESTAMENT IN PLAIN ENGLISH, Lulu Publishing, 2007 (3rd Edition 2009) , provides an excellent translation of the 27-book Western version of the Aramaic New Testament. Pastor Bauscher based his translation on the 1920 Edition of the Syriac New Testament published by the British and Foreign Bible Society. Pastor Bauscher makes it clear that he believes this text to be the sacred original text of the New Testament.

Along with his translation are numerous concurrent comparisons by insert and footnote contrasting the key differences of the Greek versions of these 27 New Testament books. These notes serve to impressively demonstrate the primacy of Aramaic text over the Greek since the different Greek versions show variations that are clearly associated with alternative and sometimes clearly incorrect translations of the underlying Aramaic words. The fact that Jesus and his followers all spoke and wrote in Aramaic suggests that their early writings were in Aramaic rather than in a foreign language that the Jews disdained and probably did not know. Bauscher proves this point page after page without distracting from the translation itself.

In a few cases Bauscher decided to interpret selected phrases in a non-standard fashion. In particular, when the Gospels quote the Messiah saying the Aramaic words ???Ena Na,??? which means ???I am???, Bauscher translates this to be ???I AM THE LIVING GOD??? based on his interpretation of the ???I AM??? quote from the Old Testament book of Exodus. In contrast, when a formerly blind man said: "Ena na!" in John 9:9, Bauscher translates that phrase as ???I am he???. Bauscher also translates the Aramaic cognate of the unpronounced name of God as ???THE LORD JEHOVAH??? which emphasizes the sacred reference. These are not standard interpretations, but they are clearly explained in detail by the author.

Pastor Bauscher demonstrates an impressive command of Biblical Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the ancient alphabet fonts used by the Jews in the first Century. He has also written a separately published full "interlinear translation??? of the text which can be used to check the meaning of every word. This is an excellent book for introducing Christian readers to the issue of Aramaic primacy over the Greek versions of the New Testament which are apparently translations from an Aramaic original.

Prof. Otto G. Raabe
Davis, California USA

I also purchased and downloaded a copy of his translation. For the price, you don't have to hesitate! This is a valuable resource for any serious Aramaic primacy researcher.

It's a pity that Dave left normal discussion. Let's not begin about who started etc, but this really annoys me!
Why do people who believe in Christ/Messiah have to fight about words or dogma's?

Quote:Why do people who believe in Christ/Messiah have to fight about words or dogma's?

We don't "have to" fight, we chose to fight and it is the motive of the heart that God will examine and judge.

I too have a copy of David's translation, and now that the third edition is ready, some of the big bugs are probably exterminated from its pages. I think it best not to interpret the ???I AM??? sayings in the Gospel of John with "I AM The Living God". I believe that it should just be left as I AM, in caps, where it is obvious Messiah is using it to express His eternal nature.

I would also have liked to see the Tetragramaton YHWH or YHVH left as such, without the voel signs, making it read Jehovah or Yahwey...and let the reader decide how it should be pronounced being that no one is certain how it should sound.

David has fixed the readings in this 3rd edition for the passages that say "The daughter of Herodia" danced before Herod and where Y'shua said He was "Not yet" going up to the Feast.

The only other thing I believe needs to be changed is the passages where the Apostle Paul is talking about spiritual "languages" being a gift of the Holy Spirit. David's translation uses "languages" rather than "tongues" which is literally correct, but makes some of the passages in 1 Cor 12 & 14 teach nonsense. If the english helper word "spiritual" in brackets or italics in these few places were present, then the passages would be understood as to its clear meaning.