Peshitta Forum

Full Version: David Bauscher Peshitta Translation
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I'm wanting to get a little Peshitta collection together. I'm not an Aramaic primacist, but the scholarship and the Peshitta itself fascinates me. I already have the George Lamsa translation and I LOVE it. What is everyone's opinion o Bauscher's Interlinear translation and his Plain English translation. I also saw that there is an Interlinear-Plain English parallel. Are any of these, especially the parallel, any good?

You can download a FREE (PDF) COPY of the 4 Gospels from Dave's Interlinear of Volume 1 at the following link:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/rev-david-bauscher/the-aramaic%E2%80%93english-interlinear-new-testament-color-edition-volume-1/ebook/product-17507526.html">http://www.lulu.com/shop/rev-david-baus ... 07526.html</a><!-- m -->

You can also download a FREE (PDF) COPY of the 4 Gospels from Dave's Plain English Version (Volume 1) at:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/rev-david-bauscher/the-original-aramaic-gospels-in-plain-english/ebook/product-17515110.html">http://www.lulu.com/shop/rev-david-baus ... 15110.html</a><!-- m -->

They bot have his footnotes and can be viewed to give one a better idea as to whether they would want to spend money to get the complete texts of these works or not. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> I do not know about the layout of the PARALLEL version, but you can safely bet that the the Interlinear in the Parallel Version will be styled the same as in his plain Interlinear. The Parallel version most likely will have the Interlinear text on one page and the plain English adjacent to it.

They both [the Interlinear and the Plain English text from Mattith-YaHu thru Revelation] can be viewed online at BIBLOS:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturetext.com/matthew/1.htm">http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturet ... thew/1.htm</a><!-- m -->
Roth used the text of Paul Younan's translation with his permission, and he even credits him in the translation.
Quote:Roth used the text of Paul Younan's translation with his permission, and he even credits him in the translation

Correction: Paul Younan never made a translation, so you will have to look under the Sheets, Lawrence, to see where that edited portion of the AENT comes from... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
For some reason I'm starting to like you more and more everyday LOL! But anyway, Andrew Roth has given credit to his sources. There is no plagiarism going on here.
:

I agree....and I contended with David about his charge against Andrew and tried to reason with him about it, to no avail. I know the reasons why David got so bent over it and they are not pure motives.

Saying that...Andrew could have been clearer about what it was that he actually "translated" vs what he just edited. I believe that only the book of Galatians can be said to be his translation, while all else you read there is other?s work, which he then edited to read the way he liked. Which is fine, as long as this is made clear so as to not be misleading at all.
Paul Younan's plain English only Translation can be found at the bottom of the following page for proofs. Scroll down till you see English-only portions. These are the text that Roth used as an underlying text for his version:
<!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: --> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/peshitta_interlinear.htm">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicN ... linear.htm</a><!-- m --> <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->
.
The Texas RAT Wrote:I do know that Paul says that anybody can use his text at any time without permission and that Murdock's translation is in the public domain, but I have not seen where Roth has given credit to Paul's or Murdock's translations, or comes out and says that Paul's plain English and Murdock's translations were used as underlying texts.
From page v. of the AENT (all four editions),

"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 version and approach."

Here he admits that he took their translations and compared them to the Aramaic, cross-checking each word and making revisions (however little) as he sees fit.

And from the AENT website,

"Compiled, Edited & Translated with consultation to both Ancient and Modern Authorities including: The Khabouris Codex and the 1905 Edition of the Syriac New Testament by the British and Foreign Bible Society."

Notice the compiling and editing part.

While it's true that (at the expense of promotion) Roth could be a little more upfront about these things (no one is arguing that), the whole Roth-bashing is getting a little old and we're all familiar here with what he did and what went on. The focus of the AENT is more so the commentary that Roth provides, and I think originally he wanted to just post the commentary on his website only to have his webmaster convince him to publish it instead, and then three years later we have the AENT. Younan and Murdock were likely used as time-saving aids to get the commentary published. Similar in some ways to how theologians will use a base translation like NASB to publish their own study bibles, the only difference is that Roth was able to edit the text.

As for the original question, I would get Janet Maiera's interlinear and translation instead of Bauscher's (she also has a corresponding dictionary that's numbered to her interlinears). Magiera has the least bias of any translation IMO, and there is also a Messianic Edition if you want Semitic transliterations. Although she uses the Western Peshitto instead of the Eastern Peshitta, but the differences can be found here,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/34859108/Eastern-and-Western-Peshitta-Differences">http://www.scribd.com/doc/34859108/East ... ifferences</a><!-- m -->
I have also found that Mageria?s translation work is better overall than Bauscher?s, with much less interpretiveness/bias going on there and less doctrinal notes, staying on the textual side of things much more so than Bauscher and Roth?s work, though many notes in both Bauscher and Roth's editions are very helpful and are important.

I would get them all and weigh all that is found therein...it's what I do...but in the future, I'll be using the forth coming, God willing, Official Church of the East Aramaic/English Study Bible as my authoritative Aramaic Bible and English translation.

In the meantime and on into the future...it's at Dukhrana.com where I'll be studying the actual Eastern and Western text?s most of the time.

Also?I have come upon a strange and interesting thing in Galatians 5:1 of the Peshitta text and will be making a post about it soon, as it relates with the Greek form of the text, and the English text of the Greek text, from the Tyndale translation tradition. Stay tuned. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Shlama,
Chuck
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
The Texas RAT Wrote:I do know that Paul says that anybody can use his text at any time without permission and that Murdock's translation is in the public domain, but I have not seen where Roth has given credit to Paul's or Murdock's translations, or comes out and says that Paul's plain English and Murdock's translations were used as underlying texts.
From page v. of the AENT (all four editions),

"To retain as much consistency as possible, Paul Younan's translation has been [u]compared from Matthew 1 to Acts 15 and James Murdock's translation for the remainder, each word has been cross-checked with Aramaic[/u]. In some cases, both sources are woven together into this translation, under a unifying editorial version and approach."
Compared is not the same as saying that he revised the translations of Younan and Murdock!


Luc Lefebvre Wrote:And from the AENT website,

"Compiled, Edited & Translated with consultation to both Ancient and Modern Authorities including: The Khabouris Codex and the 1905 Edition of the Syriac New Testament by the British and Foreign Bible Society."
Again he is (very) vague as to admitting that he barely edited the other translations.


Luc Lefebvre Wrote:While it's true that (at the expense of promotion) Roth could be a little more upfront about these things (no one is arguing that),
Seems to be unanimous then that Andrew has told " a story" about the FACT that he is by no means a translator, yet but only an editor instead!


Luc Lefebvre Wrote:the whole Roth-bashing is getting a little old and we're all familiar here with what he did and what went on.
I just saw this for the first time (See quotes below) and decided to check the text to see if it were true and I found out that it was to the best of my ability to check Andrew'w text, as I only have access to his free sample pages.
Stephen Silver Wrote:Shlama Khulkon:
Buyer beware. I hate to be the one to burst your bubbles, but it is obviously not well known that Andrew Roth's AENT is not his pure translation but primarily a compilation of James Murdock's 1852 translation and Paul Younan's Interlinear translation up to Acts 16. Roth added Hebraic sounding names as well as YHVH in place of MarYa. He also used my transcription of the Khabouris extensively, only informing me after the fact, for which I received credit in the first printing. Roth translated short, portions of Galatians to conform to his Nazarene Judaic beliefs concerning Torah Observance.
Roth's claim to fame is his copious comments and notes which to some, including myself have a marked anti-Christian polemic, to his chagrin. I'm surprised that after all of this time Roth has not come clean with an introductory page devoted to a disclaimer explaining that the book is a compilation rather than a translation. This may come as a shock to some, but it is true.
Thirdwo Wrote:Im not sure why it's so hard to just say: "I used James Murdoch's 1800s translation work and Paul Younan's Interlinear work, and Steven Silver's transcription work...and then edited these into the way I thought the text should read, "translating" the book of Galatians to match up with my particular religious beliefs, because if I left it Alone, it doesn?t, thus I am more an editor of others work in this version of the New Testament, than a translator."



Luc Lefebvre Wrote:The focus of the AENT is more so the commentary that Roth provides,
Yes I would agree that the foot notes are good and can/should be studied, but this is no excuse for claiming to be a translator instead of an editor!


Luc Lefebvre Wrote:and I think originally he wanted to just post the commentary on his website only to have his webmaster convince him to publish it instead, and then three years later we have the AENT.
Yes Roth readily admits this matter.


Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Younan and Murdock were likely used as time-saving aids to get the commentary published. Similar in some ways to how theologians will use a base translation like NASB to publish their own study bibles, the only difference is that Roth was able to edit the text.
Now, why has not Roth just said this in his preface and on his website where he sells his version? Even at the expense of lucre why not just be honest about this. After all you, me, as well as everybody else clearly can see the truth of the issue.


Luc Lefebvre Wrote:As for the original question, I would get Janet Maiera's interlinear and translation instead of Bauscher's (she also has a corresponding dictionary that's numbered to her interlinears). Magiera has the least bias of any translation IMO,
This I will take to heart, so as for any money I get to spend on buying Scriptures I will spend it on a translation which sticks true to the Text, awmain.


Luc Lefebvre Wrote:and there is also a Messianic Edition if you want Semitic transliterations. Although she uses the Western Peshitto instead of the Eastern Peshitta, but the differences can be found here,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/34859108/Eastern-and-Western-Peshitta-Differences">http://www.scribd.com/doc/34859108/East ... ifferences</a><!-- m -->
Some more of the differences between the PeshittA and PeshittO can be found at:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mediafire.com/view/?rkd6eh7p0m07cgc">http://www.mediafire.com/view/?rkd6eh7p0m07cgc</a><!-- m -->
.
The Texas RAT Wrote:
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
The Texas RAT Wrote:Compared is not the same as saying that he revised the translations of Younan and Murdock!
I think when he says compared, he means that he took their texts and compared them to the original Aramaic (not compared them to his own translation).

Anyway, if you're interested, here is Roths response to these criticisms,

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

Shlama!
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:I think when he says compared, he means that he took their texts and compared them to the original Aramaic (not compared them to his own translation).

Anyway, if you're interested, here is Roths response to these criticisms,

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

Shlama!

Thanks for sharing Roth's pitiful admissions here as I do believe other can benefit from a clearer understanding about Roth's version. OK, so on some remote back page of some other website in which one would be hard pressed to find (as I have Googled this subject and had not come across it) Roth still miserably fails to admit to only having made a revised version of Younan's and Murdock's translations.

Andrew Gariel Roth Wrote:Some may ask though: "Don't you also say that the page must be as blank as possible to translate in the introduction?" The answer is yes of course, and so it was when I started this research two decades back. I began by looking at the Aramaic word for word and line by line. I saved hundreds of emails and smaller essays on my hard drive of the countless places I translated and then compared, and in the end, after all this painstaking checking on both the Aramaic and English sides, I came up with a validated, scholarly and defensible translation. I didn't just cut and paste Murdock or Younan-I confirmed their work myself for the benefit of all.

As I said he is still trying to say that he made a translation is is denying that he copied and pasted Younan's and Murdock's work word for word and then edited them.

The following is a good example of how CLEAR Roth should be being (Disclaimer I -Will- do not necessarily care for the following version)- [Bold and underline emphasis added throughout]
Manuel Vanhe Wrote:Author:
Webster (1833) and Manuel Vanhee

e-Sword Version:
9.x - 10.x

Tab Name:
RHB (1.4)

Suggest New Tag::
Free, Restored, Holy, Bible, TR, MT,

Manuel Vanhee (Public domain 2012)
The Restored Holy Bible is my attempt to restore the presevered Bible text in English and to deal with irregularities.
It is also optimalisated for preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God over the World and it is the most harmonisated English Bible ever. This is a Gift for the Church of God and free for all.

Before I started this translation did I for one year research in translation errors, sources and the commentary of their defenders. I compared every English and Dutch translation that I found on Internet.

The Restored Holy Bible a literal translation is based on 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus (gnt-tr.bblx) without the Comma Johanneum and follows for 99% the MT .
The NT quotes are from an older source then the MT and LXX. I fused the NT citations into the MT text in order to restore the Original Text.
The Restored Holy Bible is a heavy edited update of the Webster Bible, I updated language, reduced the spell variants of names, corrected plural errors, I used KJC and Strong in combination with the Statenvertaling and other literal translations for the sake of harmonisation. I was very critical in correction of the irregularities. I restored the old measures, money and the count system (see the keywords thousand and myriad Num 31:43 Jon 4:11 Dan 7:10 )
Revelation has no cross-references for this reason: Rev 22:18-19 but Thou can type Rev in the search bar.

I restored the alphabetic order of the 12 acrostic works ( Psa 25 Psa 34 Psa 37 Psa 111 Psa 112 Psa 119 Psa 145 Pro 31 Lam 1 Lam 2 Lam 3 Lam 4 )
The lost letter "Nun" verse in Psa 145:13 is presevered thanks the Syriac, LXX, Vulgate and DSS, but lost in every MT manuscript. .
I used the DSS version for the Nun and restored all the other verses just by verse swapping. (Psa 34 was the hardest to restore because the lost letter was hidden in the second part of the last verse)

Thou, Thee, and Thy are the second person singular; ye, you, your and yours are the second person plural.
The "Hell" words are Sheol (Hades) and Gehenna.
GOD and LORD (with capitals) in the NT are only based on quote info from the Old Testament. (The God names are different in the Greek text).
I'm aware of the symbolic keywords and used KJC and Strong for more keyword priority in the translation

The word Amen (H543 G281) means "truly, agree or ending" it was NOT translated in any of the sources. This word is in the begin of a verse is a warning of Jesus and on the end a agreement or ending of a prayer ( 24/27 of the NT books ends with the word Amen in the TR 1894)
The shofar (H7782) is an other blow instrument then the trumpet(H2689 H8619 G4536) but they are related with the Holy Days and the return of Christ as King of the World in the Messianic Age (the Kingdom of God).
From the moment that there is a Peace Covenant in Jerusalem with the European "prince" restarts the last year-week of Daniel. It means that the Saints have then 3? years to preach the Gospel over the World and to flee to the Place of Safety Mat 24:7-20 Rev 12:13-17 Dan 11:40-43 . <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-downloads/file/7566-restored-holy-bible/">http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-dow ... oly-bible/</a><!-- m --> ).

Now be it know this is not the first version to openly admit that they revised another's translation (e.g. - RSV, Revised Murdock, not to mention the Modern/2002/etc... KJVs). It is a common thing to do, but usually the editor not only readily admits to doing so but is very clears upon the matter. Again Roth is (in a very unclear hidden-away webpage that you brought fourth) vague at best about what he has done! You know if he would just clearly admit in a posting on his AENT website and in his AENT Intro, and also clearly admit so in his video interviews that he simply copied and pasted Younan's and Murdock's works and lightly edited them the accusations would not ever had been.

It is a shame when some one whom claims to be a Believer in HaMashiahk uses such tactics to gain either prestige or lucre. Such a false prestige not worth one's good name. The only thing that one could say to convince me to not expose the truth upon this matter would be if Roth repents and openly upon his AENT website and in his Intros from now on admits that he not only but revised two early translations. Anything short would have to be exposed, not to belittles Roth but to educate any readers of his version as to what they are truly studying. They are owed that much and if he will not be straight with them then some one else will.

Which reminds me a while back on TV they ran some commercials that had different people claiming that they where Emmit Smith. Emmit means STRAIGHT just as the word Peshitta means Straight. Can you see the irony of these people not being STRAIGHT about being Emmit [Straight] is the same as Roth not being STRAIGHT. Then again he is not the only one that has made such a crocked claim as to having done so. Oy! Will we ever see a true English PeshittA?

Also, instead of trying to blast those who exposed what he did, Roth would have been better of if would just came out and admitted to the charges brought against him. Instead he rambles on about the others short comings. As if that justified what he did.

Now Luc I am not saying that Roth's version can not be used for studying. But I do not think for one moment that being deceptive about FACTS are going to help anyone.

<!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: --> And as for his being of the Eastern PeshittA he missed one of the Western PeshittO reading of Murdock's (see: Matthew 21:4) . if Roth would have worked from scratch as he claims this Western PeshittO reading would not be in his so-called translation. <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->

So Luc if you're hope is for me to never ever expose what Roth has done/is doing, then plead with him, not me, to adhere to telling the truth forthright in the WIDE OPEN. And hope that he decides to repent as opposed to running off in the dark on some remote webpage to belittle me instead. But if he so decides to slander me instead well I will just have to count it all joy, Hallele-YaH Awmain.
The Texas RAT Wrote:
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:So Luc if you're hope is for me to never ever expose what Roth has done/is doing, then pledge with him, not me, to adhere to telling the truth forthright in the WIDE OPEN. And hope that he decides to repent as opposed to running off in the dark on some remote webpage to belittle me instead. But if he so decides to slander me instead well I will just have to count it all joy, Hallelu-YaH Awmain.
Wow. Um... you really seem to be taking this issue personally. I would suggest going and talking to Roth yourself as he no longer frequents this forum, and see what he has to say. If you don't know how to reach him let me know and I can PM you.

Since you seem to be caught up in Peshitta VS Peshitto thing though, note that the AENT lines up with the eastern Peshitta except in the case of the western 5 that are not part of it. On the other hand, Magiera's translation, although called the Peshitta, is actually the Peshitto.
Is this Roth critic David Bauscher? I know Bauscher is one of the most outspoken critics of Roth and the AENT (which I believe is a superb translation of the Aramaic Peshitta).
Maybe it's getting time to stop remembering what people have said in the past. Some people got furious, they do not discuss or participate here and we keep on talking and even copying the offspring of the discussions from their web-sites <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> nahh... <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

All translations have issues and the translators have MarYa on their mind. Let's focus on that.
SC2...if he were David Bauscher, he is being a critic of his own version as well in his posts, which I don't think David would be doing.

You said: "superb translation" when speaking of Andrew Roth's version of the Peshitta/Peshitto.

Sadly, not so much... He does not just leave the text be, but edits and modifies it to his own liking and into his own image, as He wants it to read like...which turns it into a version that his particular group can use more than any others. It is thus a "sectarian version" of the Peshitta/Peshitto.

And while some of his notes are good and useful...many are just way too biased and sectarian to be useful to those outside of his particular religious expression, which I feel is wrong to do, if you are going to sell it to the public, as if it were really the Eastern Peshitta, which it is not, in the form and version he has come up with for it.

Not that it is all bad though, or of no use...it is on some levels, but it certainly is not a "superb translation" or even really a "translation" for the most part, but a composite edited version of other's work...though I do prefer it's readings in a number of places over Mr. Bauscher's version of the Western Peshitto text, which he claims is the "The Original Peshitta New Testament", which it is not.


Shlama,
Chuck
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8