Peshitta Forum
Setting the record straight - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Setting the record straight (/showthread.php?tid=2101)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5


Re: Setting the record straight - Christina - 05-02-2009

Shlama Dawid, sorry I wrote my reply before I saw your post. I'd like to comment on some of the things you said:

Dawid Wrote:I am going to do what I seem to do constantly, which is take the middle road.
Andrew: I was under the impression that this was an all new translation before I bought it. However, in response to Mr. Bauscher, I think that the introduction makes it abundantly clear what Mr. Roth has done. Indroduction, page v, second paragraph. The understanding that I get from this paragraph is that it might be better advertized as a revision, like RSV, NKJV, or NASB, instead of a new translation, but I might be misunderstanding.

That's ok, you probably haven't been following akhan Andrew's posts here from the beginning, I have so AENT turned out exactly as I expected it to. Nevertheless you are entitled to your opinion and I'm sure Andrew will consider it as you voiced it in a respectful manner.

Dawid Wrote:Now, as to Mr. Younan's claim that he is not translating the Peshitta...that is pure semantics. To translate, simply defined, is to render in another language. What you have done is to create an extreme version of formal equivalency, but it is still a translation. According to one Jewish sage, to translate literally is to be a liar, but to translate according to the meaning is to be a blasphemer. :-D

I agree with Paul that an interlinear is not really a translation, but I respect your opinion. I just wish that Dave showed the kind of respect and objectivity you have instead of jumping to conclusions and making accusations WITHOUT even asking Andrew for clarification - that's why I've been so harsh with him - he didn't even bother to ask Andrew in private beforehand!

Dawid Wrote:Now, for Christina, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that PY and JM after the footnotes are not sufficient to note something about the translation. It is still necessary to give credit for the footnotes that he borrowed, and that is one way to do it, but it doesn't apply to the translation.

See what Andrew wrote above.

Dawid Wrote:Also, to quote the book in a review is not in violation of copyright law.

I am not merely referring to Dave's review on amazon, I am also referring to the pages of comments, all the quotes IN TOTAL between Dave, Albion & Ryan exceed the 70 verses limitation stated in the AENT's copyright notice. Check out the links in my above post and "do the math."

Dawid Wrote:There is one or two things I might suggest for future editions to avoid this sort of controversy. You might include a bibliography. Frankly, if I footnoted my papers for college the way you have footnoted this book, and failed to include a references or bibliography section, I would get major point deductions.

A perfectly reasonable suggestion, which I believe both Andrew and his publisher would welcome and appreciate, especially since your approach is respectful and considerate.

Dawid Wrote:In essence, I think Andrew has done nothing wrong, but he could have made it clearer what he was doing. Mr Bauscher and the others have some valid points about insufficient notation, but I think they're overreacting. I have to say that I was under the impression that this was a brand new translation, and I was slightly disappointed in finding out that it was more of a revision, but that does not make it an invalid scholarly work, nor does it make it plagiarism.

Now you may pick this post apart all you wish. I know we religious people like nothing better than to tear eachother up.

That my dear is the crux of the matter - Andrew's translation is NOT a plagiarism, PERIOD. I think you're being too kind to Dave and his 2 side-kicks, I have read Dave's review and all their comments, they are not merely "overreacting" they are being downright deceitful and nasty, and I will their accusations what they are - false, and their manner what is - nastiness!


Re: Setting the record straight - Dawid - 05-02-2009

Christina Wrote:Shlama Dawid, sorry I wrote my reply before I saw your post. I'd like to comment on some of the things you said:

Dawid Wrote:I am going to do what I seem to do constantly, which is take the middle road.
Andrew: I was under the impression that this was an all new translation before I bought it. However, in response to Mr. Bauscher, I think that the introduction makes it abundantly clear what Mr. Roth has done. Indroduction, page v, second paragraph. The understanding that I get from this paragraph is that it might be better advertized as a revision, like RSV, NKJV, or NASB, instead of a new translation, but I might be misunderstanding.

That's ok, you probably haven't been following akhan Andrew's posts here from the beginning, I have so AENT turned out exactly as I expected it to. Nevertheless you are entitled to your opinion and I'm sure Andrew will consider it as you voiced it in a respectful manner.
I fully agree that if I had followed all his posts I might have understood this. But should a person have to follow every post that Mr. Roth has made to understand what he or she is buying? I'm not saying that Mr. Roth was being deceitful, I just think it could have been made more clear what the AENT is.

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:Now, as to Mr. Younan's claim that he is not translating the Peshitta...that is pure semantics. To translate, simply defined, is to render in another language. What you have done is to create an extreme version of formal equivalency, but it is still a translation. According to one Jewish sage, to translate literally is to be a liar, but to translate according to the meaning is to be a blasphemer. :-D

I agree with Paul that an interlinear is not really a translation, but I respect your opinion. I just wish that Dave showed the kind of respect and objectivity you have instead of jumping to conclusions and making accusations WITHOUT even asking Andrew for clarification - that's why I've been so harsh with him - he didn't even bother to ask Andrew in private beforehand!
I've really never heard anyone say that an interlinear is not a translation before. For instance, if I were to say that the Hebrew word "Halach" means "he walked" did I just translate that word? Absolutely. And this is exactly what an interlinear is. A word-by-word translation. Halach=he walked is a translation, and it is identical to an interlinear...except that I haven't downloaded the Semitic languages thingee on my new computer yet. :-D
I'm not going to say that Mr. Bauscher reacted properly, but I am going to use the tired old saying that two wrongs don't make a right.

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:Now, for Christina, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that PY and JM after the footnotes are not sufficient to note something about the translation. It is still necessary to give credit for the footnotes that he borrowed, and that is one way to do it, but it doesn't apply to the translation.

See what Andrew wrote above.
Is there a particular post? There are so many and so long I start going cross-eyed. lol.

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:Also, to quote the book in a review is not in violation of copyright law.

I am not merely referring to Dave's review on amazon, I am also referring to the pages of comments, all the quotes IN TOTAL between Dave, Albion & Ryan exceed the 70 verses limitation stated in the AENT's copyright notice. Check out the links in my above post and "do the math."
I looked at your last post. But from how I understand the copyright notice, that's only talking about consecutive verses. Did I misunderstand it?

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:There is one or two things I might suggest for future editions to avoid this sort of controversy. You might include a bibliography. Frankly, if I footnoted my papers for college the way you have footnoted this book, and failed to include a references or bibliography section, I would get major point deductions.

A perfectly reasonable suggestion, which I believe both Andrew and his publisher would welcome and appreciate, especially since your approach is respectful and considerate.

Dawid Wrote:In essence, I think Andrew has done nothing wrong, but he could have made it clearer what he was doing. Mr Bauscher and the others have some valid points about insufficient notation, but I think they're overreacting. I have to say that I was under the impression that this was a brand new translation, and I was slightly disappointed in finding out that it was more of a revision, but that does not make it an invalid scholarly work, nor does it make it plagiarism.

Now you may pick this post apart all you wish. I know we religious people like nothing better than to tear eachother up.

That my dear is the crux of the matter - Andrew's translation is NOT a plagiarism, PERIOD. I think you're being too kind to Dave and his 2 side-kicks, I have read Dave's review and all their comments, they are not merely "overreacting" they are being downright deceitful and nasty, and I will their accusations what they are - false, and their manner what is - nastiness!
It escaped being plagiarism by the narrow margin of one paragraph in the introduction. I have no doubt that Mr. Roth has the best of intentions, but I'm really thinking that this controversy should show us that it needs to be more clearly noted. He has done nothing wrong, but it is easy to get the impression that he did. You can ask Mr. Bauscher, he and I have not discussed this. My conclusions are my own and completely independent, but it is probably insufficiently noted.

Now, what you say about Dave is very strong. Let's try to look at this objectively. They are being nasty, that much is true. Deceitful? Not so much. I think they're wrong on several things, but not everyone who says something wrong is lying. Their accusations are false, indeed, but not intentionally so. Mr. Bauscher is not the type to lie. And I honestly don't think the other two are being deceptive.

Accusations have flown thick and fast in this discussion. Not a one of them from either side would stick in court. How about we slow down, back off a little, breathe deeply, and then maybe both sides can come at this without so much venom.


Re: Setting the record straight - Christina - 05-02-2009

Shlama akhi Dawid,

A few things before I go:

Dawid Wrote:I fully agree that if I had followed all his posts I might have understood this. But should a person have to follow every post that Mr. Roth has made to understand what he or she is buying? I'm not saying that Mr. Roth was being deceitful, I just think it could have been made more clear what the AENT is.

This is good point, nevertheless the customer can always email their concerns to the translator/publisher for clarification before they jump to conclusions, Albion at least did that much, Dave and Ryan on the other hand didn't bother.

Dawid Wrote:I've really never heard anyone say that an interlinear is not a translation before. For instance, if I were to say that the Hebrew word "Halach" means "he walked" did I just translate that word? Absolutely. And this is exactly what an interlinear is. A word-by-word translation. Halach=he walked is a translation, and it is identical to an interlinear...except that I haven't downloaded the Semitic languages thingee on my new computer yet. :-D

I suppose we can agree to disagree on this matter, but I'm sure you know that not every Hebrew word can be translated into one English word, likewise with Aramaic, which akhan Paul can explain in greater detail. This is why I do not view Paul's interlinear as an actual translation, simply because it's not possible to translate every Aramaic word into one English word, everyone I know personally who has some basic knowledge of Semitic languages (eg: Pastors & lay Bible readers) agrees. Nevertheless akhan Paul did the work, and he's adamant that it's not a translation - it's his work so it's for him to define, and he doesn't define it as a translation.

Dawid Wrote:I'm not going to say that Mr. Bauscher reacted properly, but I am going to use the tired old saying that two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, this is good advice.

Dawid Wrote:
Christina Wrote:See what Andrew wrote above.
Is there a particular post? There are so many and so long I start going cross-eyed. lol.

LOL I hear you! It's the post that's directly after Dave's last post, but I'll quote it for you:

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

A few things:

1) I never heard of Lawrence Sheets before these accusations. If he also copied Paul's work, then that's fine, because again Paul's work cannot be plagiarized. David, you are so ignorant. You think that Mr. Sheet's can claim originality from Paul's work but I am a plagiarist? Do you see how stupid and inconsistent that is? Either both Mr. Sheets and I could copy or neither of us could. But Paul himself has clarified this--I helped him when you probably didn't even know what the Peshitta was. Since Paul never worked with Mr. Sheets, but he has worked with me why aren't you going after him for "plagiarizing" Paul? Or is it just me who has that "privilege". I wonder why...

2) If Paul says he wasn't plagiarized, that should suffice. As I said, PUBLIC DOMAIN works can NOT be plagiarized.

3) Nevertheless, you David say that the preface was the proper place to give attribution, not the footnotes. Which leads to these observations:

a) You admit that I give credit in the footnotes.
b) You have NO PROOF for his assertion that I did not give attribution. Where and how I did so is less important than the fact that I did so.
c) As a matter of fact, I do give attribution in the Preface section. If you David had bothered to read the rebuttal I gave on Refiners Fire, or just go to p v of AENT, this is what you would have seen:

"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 with 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 reading was required than detailed by my mentors, the preferred readings were substituted in this edition.

"cross checked" also has a meaning that you apparently don't understand. Really, it's not my fault you don't understand English fully.

And David, I have refuted you, and it is you who will repent or YHWH will take you out of my way. Why don't YOU admit that you have, putting it kindly, major animosity towards anyone who disagrees with you, especially if they are of my lineage? Why don't you admit that you are trying to promote your translation at my expense? Your hateful speech on this forum betrays your intentions.

I am not only not sorry, I am proud of my work and the way I explained it. I call the work MARI (Murdock-Roth-Younan). I also call it "a compilation, annotation and translation". I give attribution in the Preface, in the footnotes and throughout the work. It is not my fault that you are so ignorant as to neither understand these words nor the proper defintion of plagiarism.

And BTW, as long as we're at it, what about 400 pages OTHER than the translation? If I'm just cutting and pasting, what about the 1500 other footnotes that are all mine? Also, unlike you, I didn't just blindly cut and paste the 1905-20 Critical Edition on the Aramaic side, but carefully restored the Eastern readings of the Peshitta that you left on the cutting room floor, such as Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9. I also itemized hundreds of variances between Khabouris and your precious later Western imitation.

I suggest that you repent of your nastiness, anti-Semitism and religious prejudice. I have refuted you with words from your own mouth. Why don't you follow the Scriptures you say you venerate?

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Cor 13:1-13 (From Crosswalk.com)

Dawid Wrote:I looked at your last post. But from how I understand the copyright notice, that's only talking about consecutive verses. Did I misunderstand it?

No you understood it correctly, nevertheless their quotes do include consecutive verses which do outnumber 70 verses from what I counted. Also Dave mentioned "testing EVERY line of EVERY chapter of the 60 chapters" with the essay rater program - 60 chapters is way over 70 consecutive verses.

Dawid Wrote:It escaped being plagiarism by the narrow margin of one paragraph in the introduction. I have no doubt that Mr. Roth has the best of intentions, but I'm really thinking that this controversy should show us that it needs to be more clearly noted. He has done nothing wrong, but it is easy to get the impression that he did.

This is a good suggestion though you and anyone else should really forward your concerns to Baruch.

Dawid Wrote:You can ask Mr. Bauscher, he and I have not discussed this. My conclusions are my own and completely independent, but it is probably insufficiently noted.

Oh, I believe you, I didn't suspect that you were siding with him or anything like that, my apologies if I gave you this impression.

Dawid Wrote:Now, what you say about Dave is very strong. Let's try to look at this objectively. They are being nasty, that much is true. Deceitful? Not so much. I think they're wrong on several things, but not everyone who says something wrong is lying. Their accusations are false, indeed, but not intentionally so. Mr. Bauscher is not the type to lie. And I honestly don't think the other two are being deceptive.

I respectfully disagree that their nastiness is unintentional, for 3 reasons:

a) neither Dave nor Ryan bothered to ask Andrew for clarification before launching into their attacks, they could've but chose to jump to conclusions and make false accusations, so their behaviour is without excuse
b) while Albion did have some private correspondence with Andrew and Baruch about his concerns, he came over here using a different alias and also made false accusations and decided to join Dave & Ryan in trashing Andrew's work & character on amazon. Albion was given the privilege of viewing AENT Matthew months before AENT was published and he had no complaints, so why the change of mind now?
c) Dave is stubbornly still accusing Andrew of plagiarism, when everyone, including Paul has shown him this isn't so. Murdock's work has been in the public domain for years, and Paul himself has said that his work cannot be plagiarized but Dave refuses to admit that he's a wrong and has now resorted to insulting Paul and the rest of us by calling us "brainless sheep".

Dawid Wrote:Accusations have flown thick and fast in this discussion. Not a one of them from either side would stick in court. How about we slow down, back off a little, breathe deeply, and then maybe both sides can come at this without so much venom.

What you say is good, but I'm considering locking this thread because quite frankly Bauscher and the other 2 have clearly made up their minds so I don't think further discussion will be fruitful. Also complaints & suggestions about the AENT should be made to Baruch not posted here. This forum is for more important things than arguing over their plagiarism claims, though akhan Andrew is entitled defend his work and himself, which he has done. I don't think there's more to be said at this point, though we can carry on if we wish in a civil manner, but if things turn even nastier then I'm gonna have to lock the thread.


Re: Setting the record straight - Thirdwoe - 05-02-2009

...

Can we say that the 1611 "King James Version" is "plagiarized" then, when it is well documented that over 85% of it's readings are a word for word verbatim copy of the Original English Translation of the 1526-1534 New Testament from the Greek language by William Tyndale?

In the 1611 edition of the "KJV" you can read the "Translators to the Reader" where it says that they consulted the "former Translations" and "Compared them" and where they thought changes should be made, they made their own Translations and when no changes were thought necessary they went with that former Translation's reading.

So, the "King James Version" is not a "Fresh Translation" at all, but is mostly only a revision of Tyndale's Translation.

They (The Translators) state quite clearly, that their intent was to make one good one i.e. Translation, out of other good ones i.e. Translations...

I see that this is pretty close to what Andrew has stated about his work in the AENT if not the same thing. Although, it may be that it could have been made clearer in the introduction, and if so, may have averted this whole issue.

All one needs to do is look at a copy of William Tyndale's NT and compare it with the "King James Version" and see that most of it's readings are William's Translation...and yet, William is nowhere given any credit whatsoever as the Translator of those numerous and unique turns of phrases.

If we are to agree with Dave's interpretation of "Plagiarism" then the KJV is no less a "Plagiarized" work.

Dave, are you prepared to level this same charge against the Translators of the 1611 Edition of the Bible?

If not, then please explain why not?

...


Re: Setting the record straight - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 05-02-2009

Shlama all--

Apparently the message hasn't gotten totally through yet. I will try one more time. I did not "avoid plagiarism by the narrowest of margins" because the works are PUBLIC DOMAIN. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. You can NOT plagiarize public domain works. It doesn't matter WHERE attribution of if it is given with public domain resources.

Is this clear? If not, see below:

YOU CANNOT PLAGIARIZE FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN. YOU CANNOT PLAGIARIZE FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN. YOU CANNOT PLAGIARIZE FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN. YOU CANNOT PLAGIARIZE FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN. YOU CANNOT PLAGIARIZE FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN. YOU CANNOT PLAGIARIZE FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN. YOU CANNOT PLAGIARIZE FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Nevertheless, I went above and beyond in giving attribution, though I didn't have to. I did so to be open and honest, and as I answered each charge, the critics simply tried and failed to change tactics they were using against me. Let's review.

1) First, the accusation was I "plagiarized" Paul and Murdock. Then Paul explained that his work is not a translation, is available for free use by his own statement here and that I and others have assisted him with what is online. Murdock has been dead 150 years, and I have shown his work is NOT in copyright by the two most respected sources on public domain resources on the internet.

2) Then they said I plagiarized Lawrence Sheets, whom I never even heard of. Somehow it is okay for him to copy Paul's work as his own but I who actually helped Paul do the work (as opposed to someone Paul never even heard of either) but I am being deceptive? Look, that is inconsistent. If Bauscher is really concerned with Paul being plagiarized in spite of Paul's own testimony to the contrary, why isn't he attacking Sheets as well as me?

3) Then they said that I didn't give "attribution" which I didn't have to give, but nevertheless did give in hundreds of places, like the footnotes. (How about apologizing for getting this fact wrong?)

4) Then they said "OK, you gave attribution in the footnotes, but not in the Preface which is the proper place." First, again, there is NO LAW requiring WHERE I give attribution. Second, I did give attribution in the Preface, reproduced the two paragraphs. (How about apologizing for getting this fact wrong too?)

5) In addition, I have explained the definitions in the full rebuttal on Refiners FIre the terms:
a) MARI - Murdock-Roth-Younan.
b) The meaning of the sub title, " a compilation, annotation and translation".
c) That I have cross checked EVERY line in AENT against my own Aramaic understanding.
d) That even if Bauscher was correct, the fact is there are almost 400 pages of totally new features, essays, grammar guides, 1500 footnotes that are totally of my own creation, etc.
e) That the Aramaic text is itself carefully annotated (there's that word again) and checked against the 1905-20 Critical Edition with hundreds of places of major and minor variants cited. This is something that, BTW, Bauscher does NOT do. Bauscher would have you believe the Western Peshitto, the latest version of the Aramaic NT, is letter for letter identical to the autographs and divinely encoded.

"barely avoided plagiarism" my behind. How dare you?

PS--As for the bibliography issue, I didn't view that as being super critical only because all the sources are clearly listed up front and others as needed in the footnotes and essays. The overriding pattern seems to be confusion that only arises from not reading my posts here or the info I give in the AENT preface. I mean, I attribute Khabouris Codex, I atttribute the 1905-20 Critical Edition by BFBS, I attribute Murdock, I attribute Younan. When I want to contrast with Lamsa, Etheridge or anyone else, guess what, I say so.

If folks think on top of all this there needs to be a bibliography page as well, we will consider that. The proper place for that however is on AENT.org, or email Baruch at <!-- e --><a href="mailto:info@aent.org">info@aent.org</a><!-- e -->. That's a minor style point at best, and there is nothing wrong with the way the sources are listed in AENT. Again the important thing is that they ARE listed. Even the two main systems, MLA and Turabian, disagree often on how to do this, and the styles have changed quite a bit over the years.

I sincerely hope this is clear.


Re: Setting the record straight - Christina - 05-02-2009

Thirdwoe Wrote:...
If we are to agree with Dave's interpretation of "Plagiarism" then the KJV is no less a "Plagiarized" work.

Dave, are you prepared to level this same charge against the Translators of the 1611 Edition of the Bible & John Rogers, the Editor of the 1st English OT/NT called the ???Mathew???s Bible??? of 1537?

If not, then please explain why not?

...

That is a great question akhi Thirdwoe! Care to answer this one Dave?

Here are some quotes from the comments on amazon.com. Dave simply regurgitates his "essay rater" analysis so I won't re-post it here, instead I will quote the other 2:

Albion's comments have hands-down been the nastiest, he hasn't changed a bit, he's still obsessed with "Silver Crow" and is as self-centered as ever:

Albion Guppy Wrote:Dave,

As you probably saw, my review was hacked by Paul's stooge, David.

What strange bedfellows, Church of the East Deacons, wannabe Nazarenes and (so-called) "wiccan" computer hackers!

Albion Guppy

Albion Guppy Wrote:To Nick D.,

Dear Nick,

*I* was/am "the inquirer" that Ryan so courageously mentions here.

It was I who ANDREW CHOSE to release his first Book (Matthew's Gospel) of the AENT to the public through my review.

He (Andrew Gabriel Roth) sent me a PDF file of 'Matthew's Gospel' from MARI (P.E.A.C.E.)......this is what we ALL used to call the book that is now known as the AENT.

Anyway, Andrew chose me to release the PDF of Matthew's Gospel as a preview of his soon coming New Testament, to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m -->, which I gladly DID.

Later, God actually showed me that the AENT was a forgery (Yes, it was really GOD who "exposed" Andrew, NOT I !), and I asked these questions that Ryan has now publically posted here.

I was treated to "a hate fest" from ALL of the Moderators (except Stephen Silver), and crucified in public to the point of extreme cruelty through the use of words there at peshitta.org.

Paul Younan, who is a (so-called) "Deacon" in the Church of the East, led this manslaughter (Ryan did NOT include this part here at Amazon.com) and attack of emotional brutality upon me, and then I was summarily and PERMANETLY BANNED from <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m --> where I had been a member on and off since 2001!

ALL of this (in my opinion) was to "hide" this plagiarism which involved Paul Younan every bit as much as it did Andrew Gabriel Roth. THIS IS WHAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT PUBLICALLY as an "inquirer", under the name "The Truth Committee", at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m -->.

IF I remember *correctly*, this all took place on November the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of 2008.

If you'd like to hear how God showed me exactly what happened, I'll publish it here again. That story was here, but it was hacked intentionally.

Please let me know, and I'll be happy as I have time, to publish it again.

I applaud Ryan's fearlessness in the eye of the monster that both Andrew and Paul (very sadly) seem to have become!

Albion Guppy April 3rd, 2009

Albion Guppy Wrote:I would like to explain how God gave me 'a head's up' on Andrew's plagiarism.

And what I did with that information.

I was reading in Matthew's Gospel (of the AENT) trying for the umpteenth time to make sense out of the poor writing, and the typos and spelling mistakes...........All of a sudden God spoke to me and said: "I want to show you something".

I had NO IDEA that Andrew Gabriel Roth had plagiarized both Paul Younan's and James Murdock's work in his AENT.

I got down Paul Younan's Aramaic/English Gospels, and read and compared them to Andrew's AENT and lo and behold, THEY WERE THE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS!!!

I was completely and absolutely blown away! Mind boggled really.

And I felt God "impress" upon my mind that there was yet more, and He showed me where to look for the rest of the damning evidence of plagiarism by Andrew.

And I said something to the effect of: "OK, Lord, but WHAT do you want me to do about it??"

And then He showed me someone who I had ended my relationship with in a bad way from Peshitta.org.

I said: "Lord all he's gonna believe about me is that I'm angry, he's NOT gonna listen to me". This person had earlier referred to me as "the angry brother" at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m -->.

And God said: "TRUST ME".

And my wife packaged and sealed up my copy of the AENT, and we mailed it to this person.

I would refer to him by name here, but I've not asked him if that's OK to do or not.

But God was completely TRUE to His Word(s).

My old enemy has now become a beloved friend to me. "God is good ALL OF THE TIME" (as the Christian musician Don Moen might sang).

I WAS angry at peshitta.org, I was angry about a (so-called) "wiccan" hacker being allowed to stalk me there as he had stalked me all over the rest of the internet.

I was also angry that Paul Younan KNEW all of this, and he (Paul) also knew that this man had hacked the PM message system at peshitta.org, and if you clicked on the hackers profile you automatically got 20 MEGABYTES downloaded to your computer.....along with a keylogger, spyware, and malware.

Yes, I WAS VERY ANGRY! I admit it.

When Paul Younan led the psychic/emotional assualt on me, and said that I needed to see a secular psychiatrist, and get on some psychiatric drug(s). I got even ANGRIER!

Does Paul Younan now have a degree in psychiatric medicine that I don't know about??

The "BOTTOM LINE" here is: GOD ACTUALLY EXPOSED ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH as a plagiarist, and God exposed his buddy, Paul Younan, as doing a fine CYA Program for Andrew Gabriel Roth.

YHWH EXPOSED BOTH OF THESE MEN, for exactly who, and what, THEY REALLY ARE!

I affirm that this story IS TRUE, and is told word-by-word, as I remember it.

Shlama, Albion Guppy April 8th, 2009

Albion Guppy Wrote:First, please check out this post:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2008-May/145072.html">https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubunt ... 45072.html</a><!-- m -->

Let me just say, that I've been in a WAR, and it's going into it's SEVENTH (7th) YEAR now.

Clearly, I've got Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Now, this ISN'T a license to mis-behave, or to 'act out' with one's anger, as I did, from time-to-time.

I honestly did NOT mean to do that, but I'm angry about what has happened to myself AND to my wife.

I'm very angry and very SAD that this has all happened to Sandy and myself, I truly AM.

But what Paul Younan did to me at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- m --> is completely an Anti-Messiah thing to do, it clearly was NOT in the spirit of Yeshua (Jesus).

In fact, it was, and still IS, in the spirit of the father of lies, the devil.

Paul Younan has NEVER said "I'm sorry", nor do I feel that an apology will ever be forthcoming from him.

Paul thought that to nail me to the cross was FUNNY, and he literally made fun of me, in front of the whole forum.

He said things to me in public, that should only have been said IN PRIVATE.

Now my PTSD is not Paul Younan's fault, but him falling to you know who's negative magic, WAS Paul's fault. He defended this man's darkness right there on the forum, in public.

In fact, this man has bragged elsewhere on the net, how Paul Younan DEFENDED HIM IN PUBLIC, there on the forum.

Now, Paul Younan defended this hacker who actually hacked Peshitta.org back in October of 2007, and literally took it off the net for almost a MONTH!

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE??

I want to apologize to ANYONE that my PTSD affected, and HURT. I'M TRULY SORRY! I really AM.

But what Paul has done in standing by Andrew Gabriel Roth in his darkness (plagiarism), is just as wrong as anything that I've ever done out of having PTSD.

You know, I used to be embarrassed by what Paul Younan said about me. But he's just as guilty in all of this plagiarism stuff as Andrew is. And clearly, Paul Younan is the one who should be embarassed by all of this!

I'm SORRY for what I did, or failed to do, but in the end, Paul and Andrew are the guilty ones here.

The Messianic/Nazarene movement AND the Assyrian Church of the East should both be mortified by all of this.

In my OPINION, the CoE should take Paul Younan's Deaconate away from him, LITERALLY.

But will this ever actually HAPPEN?? I seriously doubt it!

I just needed to say all of this, thank YOU for listening.

Shlama, Albion

P.S. Please check out this:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Peshitta-New-Testament-Translation/dp/096796136X/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I63OI2CXYMK38&colid=DJM90LP653YO">http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-Peshitta- ... M90LP653YO</a><!-- m -->

You need to remove the underscore as David has hacked the Amazon.com servers to where one CANNOT use the "Peshitta" word here anymore at all.

Albion Guppy Wrote:Gee's Butch, I hate to disappoint you, but James Trimm did NOT "translate" the HRV "New Testament",he merely plagiarized 'The Way International's' Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament, and neither did Andrew Gabriel Roth "translate" the Aramaic English New Testament.

What is it with these (so-called) "Nazarene" New Covenant "translators"?
They cannot "translate", but they instead, merely plagiarize other REAL translators New Testaments??

I'm not sure, but I do know that it's shameful!

Instead of REALLY translating, Andrew Gabriel Roth used Paul Younan's Aramaic-English New Testament for ALL of his Gospels, and a large part of his Book of Acts.
According to another Aramaicist Primacy translator, upwards towards 98% of Andrew's AENT actually use's Paul Younan's Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament, for it's "base text", in the Gospel's, and in Acts.

And the rest of the Andrew Gabriel Roth's New Testament is even WORSE. It slavishly follows James Murdock's Syriac to English New Testament. Yes, it DOES change the Names to "Master" YHWH, and Y'shua, and the Disciples names have all been 'Aramicized', as have place names, but that's it.

Andrew's AENT follows James Murdock's Syriac to English New Testament almost word-per-word, otherwise.

This is known as "plagiarism" in the printing world (where I personally spent some time, long ago).

The appendice's are also (in places) taken from other author's work (such as E.W. Bullinger's work), WITHOUT giving credit to the original author.

Andrew Gabriel Roth's AENT cost $65.00, and is not really worth $15.00, as it's a completely unreadable MESS, especially in the Gospel's.

But be my guest, if you want to buy yet ANOTHER plagiarized "Nazarene New Testament", and waste your hard earned $65.00, please, go ahead.

However, if it was ME, I'd contact Andrew Gabriel Roth, and ask HIM just how much of Paul Younan's Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament did you actually use in your (supposed) "translation"?

And how much of James Murdock's Syriac to English New Testament did you use (read: "PLAGIARIZE") in your AENT?
Hold Andrew's feet to the fire, and remind him just how many times that he criticized James Trimm for plagiarizing his HRV New Testament.

It's funny, Andrew used to refer to James Trimm's HRV New Testament as "the Horribly Ruined Version" of the New Testament, but I can tell you personally, that the HRV is a far better plagiarized New Testament, because 'The Way International's' New Testament, was a great base text to work from (read: "plagiarize" from).

In the end, both Andrew Gabriel Roth, and James Trimm may escape Justice here on earth, but at The Great White Throne Judgement, their sins WILL be remembered, UNLESS THEY BOTH CHOOSE TO REPENT, and withdraw these hideous attempts at plagiarized "New Testament's", from the market, and refund the literally thousands of dollars that they BOTH have ripped off from innocent reader's, otherwise, their fate is in YHWH's hand's.

Andrew, who I once called my "friend", you KNOW BETTER then doing this! SHAME, SHAME, SHAME on you!

P.S. You the reader would be far better served if you buy this translation by Dave Bauscher, that has absolutely GREAT study notes in it, along with an easy to read text, it is really a very well done translation:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Original-Aramaic-Testament-Plain-English/dp/1435712897/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235336467&sr=8-1">http://www.amazon.com/Original-Aramaic- ... 467&sr=8-1</a><!-- m -->

Shlama, Albion Guppy


Ryan's Dooley has not only smeared Andrew and Paul, but also the rest of the forum members and moderators:

Ryan Dooley Wrote:You know, I've been biting my tongue on saying this, but at this point I think it is just too obvious to pass over. I'm reminded of something which Albion had said one time in that Comments section which no longer exists on this bible's webpage. That would be his mention of the "deafening silence" coming from the author towards the claim of plagiarism being alleged here. Perhaps it was at its time stated prematurely, but at least absolutely truthfully and knowledgably. Because here now is evidence in abundance, and no peep is yet to be heard from the author, nor his publisher in person .......

No, not even from all of this bible's and its author's FANFARE. The silence is indeed deafening!!! I mean, come on! I periodically stop in at Pesh_tta.org and it's as though they're all just going on about life as though this product was never posted here for sale. Andrew's bible is still praised, no one's attitudes have changed .... there is no discussion made about those "weirdos" or "slanderers" over at Amazon.com - as though this whole issue is just a vacuum of non-existence.

I find it impossible to believe that Mr. Roth never stops by his own product page to see what is being said about it, or how its ratings are coming along. And maybe Mr. Younan is too busy of a guy, who knows. But there are many, many fans of Andrew Roth's that I know cannot ALL possibly be NOT checking out his beloved bible's mainstream public selling page (here) .... all at the same time!

I know for a fact just how perceptible most of them are in digging up obscure websites to contribute to their scholarly forum in discussions. Yet, here they ALL turn a synchronized blind eye to THIS .... Andrew's worldwide-outreach bible-selling webpage on the net .... which was a dream they'd all been desperately and impatiently waiting for and longing to see ???

Come on!

This has just got to be an INTENTIONAL silent treatment. NOT A SINGLE SOUL has come to Andrew's defense here, with any defense at all, whether small or large. Not the smallest scrap of evidence to counter what we've provided. And certainly no large masterpiece to put any of us in our places. No detractors accusing us of misinterpreting Mr. Roth's Introductory comments about "consulting/comparing" his work to Younan's/Murdock's. I would like to be proven wrong. But this issue is looking so galvanized that it could be enameled in bronze.

I used to feel bad for Mr. Roth when this issue first came to my attention via Albion. Surely it must've been ME who had misinterpreted Andrew's Introduction. Or surely the underlying translations couldn't be THAT close to Younan's or Murdock's. After all, I hadn't thought to compare it with anyone else's translations before (thank you Dave B. for pointing me to the L.L. Sheets webpage). I just took Andrew's word for what he had been saying all along about his upcoming `masterpiece'.

Masterpiece alright! More like master-pieces, all glued together. All he had to do, if this WAS his original intent, was state that this WAS what he was going to do. Then there would be no fuss! That is, as long as he didn't forget to include due credit to the authors' translations which he borrowed, in the Introduction. Yet, he has failed on BOTH these accounts, and now apparently is *unaware* of all these Comments being posted here and discussed .... ON HIS OWN PRODUCT'S WEBPAGE ??? !!!

So much so that he cannot even post a SINGLE COMMENT defending himself ??? Or perhaps apologize? Ridiculous! And not a single representative on his behalf, either. Where ARE all those friends and supporters of his? I mean, here I am. Yes I admit that I used to be a lavish fawner over Andrew's scholarship and thus his `seeming ability' to translate. But I guess one could say that I've now seen the light. I seriously doubt Andrew's ability to be rendered, truly, a "scholar" at all.

This AENT was supposed to be Andrew's own translation. Done by his own hand, taken from independent translations that he'd done for various people over various years, all smooshed into one, cohesive, study bible. Instead, we got L.L. Sheets' edited version of Paul Younan's work .... VERY ROUGH editing as should be noted .... plus James Murdock's work for the rest where Mr. Younan's left off .......

Plus, a horrendous translation of Galatians DEMONSTRATING Mr. Roth's *true ability* as a "Syriac scholar". I am sincerely led to believe now, based on his stab at Galatians, that the true reason why Mr. Roth ended up exclusively using others' translations, rather than translating for himself, is that because he CANNOT. And yet, so many people were led to believe that he could translate par excellence, that they egged him on to do so. And finally, under such tremendous pressure, he finally gave in.

I am very saddened. I don't want to appear to merely slight him though .... no, I want him to see what he's done, and repent, so that he can be restored. But it's not happening so long as he continues to prill his "scholarly" aura through his previously published works, now this one, and still as primary Moderator at Paul Younan's forum.

Mr. Roth, if I have personally contributed to your downfall, I beg your forgiveness. If I have tested you, and you have failed this test by my words of lavish praise to your abilities, then I repent. I am sorry. Please acknowledge my sins committed in ignorance, as I could not see their denigrating effect on your ego at the time. Truly, a man is tested by the praise of his friends. Yet I'll never know for sure if I WAS part of the problem, unless YOU come here and open up about YOUR bible, and about all aforementioned Comments posted thus far.

Prove us wrong and BRING US to repentance; otherwise, prove us right with an honest display of humility by repentance on your own behalf. And in your awaited and speedy forgiveness, reveal at least to me whether or not you feel I contributed to your downfall. Please do not keep it back. This is the most I can think of to do as your former brother in the Faith, aside from praying for you. Let there come redemption out of this whole disgrace, please. And stop the madness of having everyone think that you're someone that you're not.

-Brother Ryan



Re: Setting the record straight - Christina - 05-02-2009

Part II:

Ryan Dooley Wrote:Ironically, this is precisely the ensuing maneuver which Andrew engages in: his victimization of Albion's [alleged] character-assassination attempts. An obvious reach for Andrew of self-impunity. But why?

It clearly appears that Mr. Roth is not willing to admit his plagiarism. And neither is his publisher. And yet, Roth's colleague Paul Younan of Peshitta.org, who, as one of the most proficient Aramaic scholars around (and thereby should of all people recognize this criminal activity), up to the recent has continued to allow Andrew both regular writership as well as primary Moderatorship of his forum. It is in writing here:

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1829">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1829</a><!-- l -->

And Mr. Younan wonders why I chose to decline his otherwise most honorary offer to have my name included on that list? Yes true, at the time it wasn't for this specific cause, but I already smelled too much fishiness going on around that place, at that time. His scholarship is bar none, and probably still leaned upon by Dave Bauscher; but in the real world, academics must give itself to applicability, otherwise it's a waste of time. And there is no place for plagiarism, cloak-and-dagger conspiratorial cover-ups, or CYA-ing to be found in, nor lived through, The Holy Pesitta Bible. But it was an honor being part of that community, while I was.

So as continues in the forum thread, Albion indeed is treated like human trash. Mr. Younan even had the gall to sidestep the bounds of the Peshitta New Testament so far as to recommend Albion to professional [secular] psychiatric services, as can be seen. This is just brazen psychological abuse; and all of it was laughed about as though a joke and a game. What's truly funny is that Eshoa consistently PRACTICED not psychiatry, nor the recommendation of the distraught to physicians (such as St. Luke), but rather HEALED THEM HIMSELF.

But what were His Words to His followers I suppose is more relevant? Well, this is where I part in "scholarship" from Mr. Younan, and all those that would lavishly follow after him: I actually believe in the Peshitta Scriptures when they admonish the followers of Eshoa by His Own commands, to PRAY FOR, and to even HEAL by yourself (according to the power of God within you) ... those who are sick, crippled, diseased, maimed, and even demon-possessed. No one should be called a scholar of a profession that they haven't mastered ... and THIS profession can only be mastered by LIVING what is written; not just talking about and debating over WHAT is written.

The effect that ignoring a real-life applicability of the knowledge encapsulated in one's "scholarly" mind can have, can begin to look like this .......

"Gee, I wonder if the Truth Committee revealed its membership .... would we recognize any names from the past? Andrew, see Akhi a big advantage to having a free translation is nobody can ***** about it later. You get what you "paid" for, and you'll LIKE it! In all seriousness, I would have deleted the original post. Very disrespectful in my opinion." (Paul Y.)

... and even end up looking like this:

"I agree with Paul". (a forum member)
"The personal attacks are unacceptable". (a moderator)
"Has the so-called `truth' committee been sent a warning? That's usually what I do before I ban a user ... Otherwise rules are rules, such posts are to be removed ... let's send him a warning if he posts again, though he might not come back now that we know who he is". (a moderator who spoke w/o even owning a copy of AENT)
"Great idea, a stern warning is in order". (Paul Y.)
"I'm compiling a list of known Albion `victims', please help me complete this list if I forgot anyone". (Paul Y., again)
"I'm very angry about the things you said to Andrew ... You befriend him and gain his trust, then bash him behind his back when all his months of hard work are finally published? And over what? Typos and a cover? How superficial can you get, man?". (a member)
"The Truth Committee will be banned!". (a moderator, who in the end had the good sense to lock down the thread and at least offer his prayers for Albion)

This above unfortunate slop is not called spiritual discernment. It is called "bandwagon effect". Making decisions based upon lack of knowledge, and rather upon affiliation. I'll say again, I've never condoned Albion's reactional-behavior as is clearly apparent within this God-awful abomination of a thread ... BUT NEITHER DO I EXCUSE NOR CONDONE ANYONE ELSE'S. This behavior does NOT reflect what the Peshitta New Testament teaches. If anyone was guilty of "fawning" anyone else in this thread, it was everyone - aside from Albion - fawning over Andrew Gabriel Roth and Paul Younan. Period.

One moderator rightly said that "This is becoming a freak show". And rightly put, for having contributed to the freakiness of it. Everyone decided to stand up, with or without a copy of AENT, and unanimously BAND against Albion, preying upon his stressor-induced abherrant reactional behavior, POST FACTO.

By this, I mean that Albion presented his case in good faith, and with excellent attitude. POST FACTO REACTIONAL BEHAVIOR is forgivable. What is absolutely intolerable though, is everyone else's disgusting stilting up of Roth's bible, without analyzing it first like Albion had done ... and ALL despite the initial transparent avoidance of Albion's enquiry on Roth's part, as well as his instigation of the predatory bandwagon effect in the ensuing (and allegiance-predictable) character assassination of Albion. In other words, there appears to be an Andrew Gabriel Roth/Paul Younan cult-like following here, with predictable allegiance to stem from their adherents. And that's what this forum thread really reveals, if you have the patience required to investigate it closely.

This ends my defense, and reveals my "moderatorship", if you will. I loved these guys, every one of them, but I'm not going to cleave to man when cleaving to the Higher is leading in another direction. I only reveal and make light of the quoted words above that I do, in order to force a second opinion upon their owners' behalves. Why? Because they should know better. Roth and Younan are not The Rabbi. And unless you are following Him closely enough, you're not going to realize that you've fallen into Andrew's plagiaristic trap, cemented by Paul Y.'s reputation and support.

I say, in your want of charging Albion with this slander, can you not yet see that yourselves are in this hole? Please, do rethink your defense of Roth, who concocted this swirl of subtle and maleficent lies; and please reconsider your former brother whom you've wounded, deeply: Albion. It's your conscience that's at stake, not mine. But it's your eternal condition which I care enough to write for. Repent, if you can now see this.

-Brother Ryan



Re: Setting the record straight - Paul Younan - 05-03-2009

gbausc Wrote:Andrew, your quote from your intro. does not attribute the translation text to Paul Younan and Murdock.

Dave, for the umpteenth time....what part of MARI standing for "Murdoch, Roth, Younan" do you not understand?

Intro? Who cares about an intro. How about the actual TITLE of the compilation Andrew has produced?

The title of the work you claim is plagiarism contains the names of the three people who contributed to the work. The title. It has their names. Their names. The title.

Go back to your little websters dictionary, and find out that the proper attribution has been given...in the title. Of the book. That you claim is plagiarism.

How many times do we have to repeat it before it sinks into your thick skull?


Re: Setting the record straight - Paul Younan - 05-03-2009

Christina Wrote:(concerning Dave Bauscher) Your attitude hasn't changed since you first started posting here.

Did you notice that too? Dave, no you don't get to come back here after storming off like a crybaby, abandoning us and your work here....and then you think you get to come back at will and charge those who never left with the things you have accused them of. No you don't have that right.

The door is always open to you to return as our brother, but there are a lot of things that you (and those who are with you) need to address on a personal level before your presence would bear fruit as it once did. Right now there is something not right with your heart and I do believe it is apparent to all here.


Re: Setting the record straight - Paul Younan - 05-03-2009

Dawid Wrote:I've really never heard anyone say that an interlinear is not a translation before.

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

In Aramaic we have a phrase, conveniently relevant to this most unfortunate situation. We say "Qa-na-neh be-Ree-sheh Qim-lon".

If I were to give an Interlinear "translation" (to use the term lightly), it would be "Horns in his head arose." A true translation into English would be "He became jealous."

Do you understand now why I do not consider an Interlinear a proper translation? Yes, the "Horns in his head arose" reading could be considered, if you insisted enough, a translation. But it did not preserve the idiom. It did not convey the true meaning of the phrase.

Please do not read the Interlinear on this website as you would a KJV...you will miss out on a lot.


Re: Setting the record straight - Paul Younan - 05-03-2009

Dawid Wrote:It escaped being plagiarism by the narrow margin of one paragraph in the introduction.

And the title of the book reflected the names of the 3 (primary) contributors doesn't count?

Suppose I compiled a series of horror stories from the following authors:

Fred Durbin
VC Andrews
Rachel Vincent
Scott Edelman
Stephen King

Linda Addison

Charles Grant
Owl Goingback
Michael Oliveri
Polly Frost

Now suppose, besides giving credit in my introduction to these individuals, that I also choose as the name of the compilation an acronym of their names....say "Dave's a Goof"....how on earth would any of my actions be considered plagiarism?

On top of all that, the other necessary condition would be that all of the above authors were either in the public domain by death or choice!

Yeah, plagiarism. Good one, Dave. Now you haven't the faintest idea about Qnoma and Plagiarism!


Re: Setting the record straight - Paul Younan - 05-03-2009

Wow, going through all these posts is making my head spin.

I especially enjoyed the parts where Dave implies I speak and everyone else "Bahs" like sheep. Oh, and Ryan's statement of the Younan~Roth "cult following." Ryan seems to think there are people who "lavishly" follow me!

Then Ryan goes on about Andrew's "plagiarism" being "cemented by" my "reputation"!

What reputation, I have no idea. Ryan, come on! As if I'm some professor at Oxford! Or a best-selling author! Please! What reputation? Are you sure you're not confusing me with Dr. Kiraz, or Prof. Sebastian Brock?

You want to attack someone who pretends to have a "reputation"....you're barking up the wrong tree fella. Perhaps you should try to sharpen your wits on James Trimm. I'm just a regular Joe like you. And none of these individuals "follow" me "lavishly"....they are here today, gone tomorrow. Like you. And like, we thought, Dave Bauscher. Until it suits his purpose to come back again after abandoning us.

There are only a handful of people here on this forum who I can honestly say love the Peshitta and are here for purposes similar to my own: i.e., to continue to learn and to honor His language. That's our kool-aid that we offer to the rest of the cult.

Wow. Make a plain, ugly and simple website, on a server sitting in your basement...with a few interlinear chapters (practically spaced years apart) in a language you were born accidentally into...and suddenly you can have a cult following with people lavishly following you like sheep. How wonderful! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

If only Ryan knew that 9 out of 10 people in my own parish don't even know about this website! What a cult leader I am!

PS - (speaking in a heavy English accent) Christina, since you are one of the top sheep please make sure my appointments for tomorrow are canceled, won't you dear? I have to fly out to Princeton tomorrow on my Gulfstream Jet to give a presentation on Aramaic primacy. Need to keep up the reputation, you know! Oh, and also make sure that everyone's "tithes" are collected. That plane didn't pay for itself, now did it? Ha-ha-ha. Oh yes, and I also asked Abudar to proofread my rebuttal to Prof. Brock in...what peer-reviewed journal was it this week? Oh yes, silly me....The Journal of Semitic Studies! You know he has to be reminded every once in a while.

On final note: just between you and I - Stephen Silver is fast losing favour with me. He seems to have a mind of his own, and dares question me at times. Can you believe it? The audacity, I say!

Ciao!


Re: Setting the record straight - Stephen Silver - 05-03-2009

Shlama Akhi Paul:
I'm just grateful to be a team player with all contributors here at peshitta.org. All the best Khabiba. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama,
Stephen


Re: Setting the record straight - gbausc - 05-03-2009

You must admit, things are starting to get exciting here again, are they not?

Has everyone noticed that Christine seems to know more and has far more guts
to take the on the charges against Andrew, than Andrew has?

Come on, Andrew; step outside.

I seem to give you all great pleasure by my posts, so here goes another one.

Christine, you are a liar! There is no better way to say it.

I posted 27 verses from Andrew's book, and you say I and Ryan posted hundreds. Ryan posted 20 verses in his review. I wrote one review at Amazon and Ryan posted one. That's it. Two separate reviews, so don???t lump the numbers together.

But you refuse to do the math and you are defending Andrew for wholesale copying and pasting the entire NT and changing about 5% of it, while accusing me of violating his copyright for reproducing 27 verses. The "straining out a gnat and swallowing the camel" charge against you still stands. You say you cannot reproduce Andrew's note which shows he did not plagiarize, but that would violate his copyright. What can you be thinking here? Is the note more than 70 verses? You "strain out a gnat and swallow the camel".


The Essay Rater analysis I displayed does not show any verses reproduced from AENT, nor did I ???quote??? them, though it analyzed 60 chapters of text I entered into the program to test them. I simply displayed the test results, showing two statistics for each chapter: Overall score and pagiarism score of unoriginal content. Andrew's translation flunks all 60 tests with flying colors; 0% overall for every single one of the 60 chapters and an average plagiarism score of 77% unoriginal content. Every chapter is flagged in almost every line for aramaicpeshitta.com, where Paul Younan's (Lawrence Sheet's prepared "English only files") and James Murdock's translation are linked as suggested sources consistently to Andrew's text in the corresponding verses.

The fact that these two translations are consistently cited as sources for Andrew's is key to understanding the plagiarism connection. If there were no copying of another translation involved, the plagiarism score would have been much lower (usually below 40%) and, more importantly, the suggested sources would be linked to short and scattered phrases to other translations at many different web sites on the internet.

BTW, Essay Rater gives a conservative estimate in its plagiarism scores; an actual hand manual of identical words shows Andrew reproduced 90-98% of Younan and Murdock, depending on the passage under consideration.

Using Essay Rater as a test for plagiarism, as far as I know, does not constitute any copyright violation, as I did not make the AENT text public or distribute it in any way; it was visible only to myself.

Where is your source about "public domain cannot be plagiarized?" You are making an assumption here, and it is an assumption fatal to your argument. You are assuming anyone can use public domain material and incorporate it wholesale into a document or even republish it without attribution. That is simply false; it is wrong and it should be wrong to do so.

Turnitin.com has FAQ's concerning plagiarism and a fact sheet concerning it:

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.

It's the "proper attributions" part that Andrew failed to comply with. He has misled the customer to believe, as Dawid has testified, and others, including myself, in his advertisements
and in his introduction, that his is a new translation, indeed, "the most definitive Aramaic to English translation in nearly 2000 years".

The claim that public domain cannot be plagiarized is simply false, and only a thief and a fraud would take someone else's translation(s) and put his name on it and sell it as his own translation. What you are saying is that I could republish Lamsa' s 1933 translation with my name on it and sell it with impunity. This is essentially what Andrew has done. The issue is not public domain, nor is it getting permission from Paul Younan (who says never translated anything from the NT anyway); it is about "proper attribution"- giving proper credit to the real authors, for the translation (not the notes, which is another topic, as far as I am concerned.)

Andrew has not given proper attribution in his preface or anywhere else in the book ,that I can find. Page v says "Paul Younan's translation has been compared from Matthew 1 to Acts 15; James Murdock for the remainder..."
How is that proper attribution? He attributes nothing here. He says he compared them to (?)

To what did he compare? Who knows? To his translation? To the Aramaic? Younan and Murdock to each other? If to his own translation, then he translated his own work and compared theirs to his, and presumably modified his here and there as a result. That would be the normal sense of the above quote.

That would indicate that Andrew did his own translation work, and that the vast majority of it is original; but this is not actually the case, as I have shown, and as Andrew is now forced to admit, (almost). He still has not told us how much of the work is original to him, and told Albion, "I don't like your tone" for even asking the question. Now Albion is banned for it.
What is this, the Grand Inquistion of Rome? If someone dares to question the great Andrew Gabriel Roth, he is excommunicated? I see nothing but corruption and lies being perpetrated here to protect Andrew Roth from his own sins.

He refused to answer the question.

No one reading Andrew's web site or his AENT introduction would conclude anything other that what Dawid or I, or Albion, or Ryan concluded: Andrew Roth's AENT was his own original translation work.

Come on, Andrew. Tell us all here. How much of the translation is actually yours?

All the other material you and Christine have injected into this debate is just so much smoke. You are quoting from posts written 5 years ago that have nothing to do with the subject we are discussing.

"Brevity is the soul of wit", saith Shakespeare; Let's try to keep it brief and to the point, lest we prove to be witless.


Dave Bauscher


Re: Setting the record straight - Dawid - 05-03-2009

Christina Wrote:Shlama akhi Dawid,

A few things before I go:

Dawid Wrote:I fully agree that if I had followed all his posts I might have understood this. But should a person have to follow every post that Mr. Roth has made to understand what he or she is buying? I'm not saying that Mr. Roth was being deceitful, I just think it could have been made more clear what the AENT is.

This is good point, nevertheless the customer can always email their concerns to the translator/publisher for clarification before they jump to conclusions, Albion at least did that much, Dave and Ryan on the other hand didn't bother.
There was no reason for anyone to have a question from what we knew ahead of time. Once the item has been purchased then you would realise what you had...but isn't it too late then?

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:I've really never heard anyone say that an interlinear is not a translation before. For instance, if I were to say that the Hebrew word "Halach" means "he walked" did I just translate that word? Absolutely. And this is exactly what an interlinear is. A word-by-word translation. Halach=he walked is a translation, and it is identical to an interlinear...except that I haven't downloaded the Semitic languages thingee on my new computer yet. :-D

I suppose we can agree to disagree on this matter, but I'm sure you know that not every Hebrew word can be translated into one English word, likewise with Aramaic, which akhan Paul can explain in greater detail. This is why I do not view Paul's interlinear as an actual translation, simply because it's not possible to translate every Aramaic word into one English word, everyone I know personally who has some basic knowledge of Semitic languages (eg: Pastors & lay Bible readers) agrees. Nevertheless akhan Paul did the work, and he's adamant that it's not a translation - it's his work so it's for him to define, and he doesn't define it as a translation.
So if I translate the Three Musketeers into English, but leave "d'Artagnan" untranslated, then this is not still a translation? What Paul is contending is that formal equivalency is not translation. I understand why he says this, but it still comes across as a semantic game to avoid his church's disapproval of translations. But for this distinction we have a name. Formal equivalency and dynamic equivalency translations. Both are translation.
No, he can't define it. I can make a sandwich and call it a pillow, but it's still a sandwich. As much as dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, and as much as definitions are fluid and change with time, we must be careful to not be deceptive with our terms. Not that Mr. Younan is deceiving anyone intentionally, but not using words carefully can cause us to be unintentionally deceptive.

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:I'm not going to say that Mr. Bauscher reacted properly, but I am going to use the tired old saying that two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, this is good advice.

Dawid Wrote:[quote="Christina"]See what Andrew wrote above.
Is there a particular post? There are so many and so long I start going cross-eyed. lol.

LOL I hear you! It's the post that's directly after Dave's last post, but I'll quote it for you:[/quote] Thanks.

Christina Wrote:
Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

A few things:

1) I never heard of Lawrence Sheets before these accusations. If he also copied Paul's work, then that's fine, because again Paul's work cannot be plagiarized. David, you are so ignorant. You think that Mr. Sheet's can claim originality from Paul's work but I am a plagiarist? Do you see how stupid and inconsistent that is? Either both Mr. Sheets and I could copy or neither of us could. But Paul himself has clarified this--I helped him when you probably didn't even know what the Peshitta was. Since Paul never worked with Mr. Sheets, but he has worked with me why aren't you going after him for "plagiarizing" Paul? Or is it just me who has that "privilege". I wonder why...
Again, there are two kinds of plagiarism. One is a legal problem, the other is not. To use a work and not attribute it is plagiarism even if the work is public domain. It simply won't get you slapped with a fine. Why is this? Because it is considered intellectually dishonest to put your name on something that you didn't come up with.
For clarification: I am not saying that Mr. Roth plagiarized. He did not. I want to make it utterly clear where I stand, that no plagiarism was involved here. However, without proper attribution, even of a public domain work, you can be guilty of plagiarism. It is still intellectually dishonest, even if it is not illegal.

Christina Wrote:
AGR Wrote:2) If Paul says he wasn't plagiarized, that should suffice. As I said, PUBLIC DOMAIN works can NOT be plagiarized.
Again, Mr. Roth, with all due respect, I must beg to differ. There are two kinds of plagiarism. Only one of them is illegal. I think you and Mr. Bauscher are using different definitions of plagiarism, both of which are valid in their proper applications.

Christina Wrote:
AGR Wrote:3) Nevertheless, you David say that the preface was the proper place to give attribution, not the footnotes. Which leads to these observations:

a) You admit that I give credit in the footnotes.
b) You have NO PROOF for his assertion that I did not give attribution. Where and how I did so is less important than the fact that I did so.
c) As a matter of fact, I do give attribution in the Preface section. If you David had bothered to read the rebuttal I gave on Refiners Fire, or just go to p v of AENT, this is what you would have seen:

"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 with 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 reading was required than detailed by my mentors, the preferred readings were substituted in this edition.

"cross checked" also has a meaning that you apparently don't understand. Really, it's not my fault you don't understand English fully.
Here I will agree generally with his points, but not with his attitude toward Mr. Bauscher. I know I'm going to get nailed for this like I do every time I stick up for someone who is unpopular, but even though Mr. Bauscher has overstepped his bounds on his criticism, that doesn't give us an excuse to do the same. Insults like "you don't understand English"? I think we can do better than that.

Christina Wrote:
AGR Wrote:And David, I have refuted you, and it is you who will repent or YHWH will take you out of my way. Why don't YOU admit that you have, putting it kindly, major animosity towards anyone who disagrees with you, especially if they are of my lineage? Why don't you admit that you are trying to promote your translation at my expense? Your hateful speech on this forum betrays your intentions.
I don't know how to say this respectfully, but hasn't your speech toward Mr. Bauscher also been hateful?

Christina Wrote:
AGR Wrote:I am not only not sorry, I am proud of my work and the way I explained it. I call the work MARI (Murdock-Roth-Younan). I also call it "a compilation, annotation and translation". I give attribution in the Preface, in the footnotes and throughout the work. It is not my fault that you are so ignorant as to neither understand these words nor the proper defintion of plagiarism.
Though I heard it throughout the months leading up to the release of MARI/PEACE, I never knew what these stood for until Sunday. I understand that your intention was for these to make it perfectly clear, but I'm afraid it didn't. I know I'm not the most active member here, but you're not just selling this book to people who post regularly on Peshitta.org. If I could be here and not know what it was, that may mean that there was a problem with it being unclear. Like I said, I understand that you meant for this name to make it completely clear, but for at least some of us it really didn't.

Christina
AGR Wrote:And BTW, as long as we're at it, what about 400 pages OTHER than the translation? If I'm just cutting and pasting, what about the 1500 other footnotes that are all mine? Also, unlike you, I didn't just blindly cut and paste the 1905-20 Critical Edition on the Aramaic side, but carefully restored the Eastern readings of the Peshitta that you left on the cutting room floor, such as Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9. I also itemized hundreds of variances between Khabouris and your precious later Western imitation.

I suggest that you repent of your nastiness, anti-Semitism and religious prejudice. I have refuted you with words from your own mouth. Why don't you follow the Scriptures you say you venerate?

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Cor 13:1-13 (From Crosswalk.com)

Dawid Wrote:I looked at your last post. But from how I understand the copyright notice, that's only talking about consecutive verses. Did I misunderstand it?

No you understood it correctly, nevertheless their quotes do include consecutive verses which do outnumber 70 verses from what I counted. Also Dave mentioned "testing EVERY line of EVERY chapter of the 60 chapters" with the essay rater program - 60 chapters is way over 70 consecutive verses.[/quote Wrote:
Ah. Okay, thank you for setting me straight on that.
But like I said before, there's no violation of copyright law for him to copy it into a program on his computer. Having a backup copy or something like that is not illegal.

Christina Wrote:[quote="Dawid"]It escaped being plagiarism by the narrow margin of one paragraph in the introduction. I have no doubt that Mr. Roth has the best of intentions, but I'm really thinking that this controversy should show us that it needs to be more clearly noted. He has done nothing wrong, but it is easy to get the impression that he did.

This is a good suggestion though you and anyone else should really forward your concerns to Baruch.

Dawid Wrote:You can ask Mr. Bauscher, he and I have not discussed this. My conclusions are my own and completely independent, but it is probably insufficiently noted.

Oh, I believe you, I didn't suspect that you were siding with him or anything like that, my apologies if I gave you this impression.
I just wanted to make it abundantly clear, because things have a way of being misunderstood on the internet.

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:Now, what you say about Dave is very strong. Let's try to look at this objectively. They are being nasty, that much is true. Deceitful? Not so much. I think they're wrong on several things, but not everyone who says something wrong is lying. Their accusations are false, indeed, but not intentionally so. Mr. Bauscher is not the type to lie. And I honestly don't think the other two are being deceptive.

I respectfully disagree that their nastiness is unintentional, for 3 reasons:

a) neither Dave nor Ryan bothered to ask Andrew for clarification before launching into their attacks, they could've but chose to jump to conclusions and make false accusations, so their behaviour is without excuse
Maybe I'm just an incurable optimist who doesn't like to think badly of anyone, but I think this was a knee-jerk reaction. Then they didn't want to back down, which is something that's easy to get into. I mean, I've been conned into defending things I didn't even believe when people thought I did and started arguing with me over them.
Again, this is not to vindicate what they did. But I still like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that I think it was not deliberate or premeditated.

Christina Wrote:b) while Albion did have some private correspondence with Andrew and Baruch about his concerns, he came over here using a different alias and also made false accusations and decided to join Dave & Ryan in trashing Andrew's work & character on amazon. Albion was given the privilege of viewing AENT Matthew months before AENT was published and he had no complaints, so why the change of mind now?
Do you know how hard it is to say something like that under your real name? It's very hard to come to a friend that you believe has done something wrong and tell them to their face. That doesn't justify it. These things should be addressed under real names, face-to-face. But it is easy to understand why someone would do this.
For one thing, he hadn't seen the full thing to know how it was attributed. For another, it may have taken him a while to catch on. I know I didn't notice at first.

Christina Wrote:c) Dave is stubbornly still accusing Andrew of plagiarism, when everyone, including Paul has shown him this isn't so. Murdock's work has been in the public domain for years, and Paul himself has said that his work cannot be plagiarized but Dave refuses to admit that he's a wrong and has now resorted to insulting Paul and the rest of us by calling us "brainless sheep".
As I mentioned earlier, there is a legal definition of plagiarism, and then there is an academic one. Legally this book is the furthest thing from plagiarism. I'm not saying that it is intellectual plagiarism. It is not. But it may need to be more clearly noted.

Christina Wrote:
Dawid Wrote:Accusations have flown thick and fast in this discussion. Not a one of them from either side would stick in court. How about we slow down, back off a little, breathe deeply, and then maybe both sides can come at this without so much venom.

What you say is good, but I'm considering locking this thread because quite frankly Bauscher and the other 2 have clearly made up their minds so I don't think further discussion will be fruitful. Also complaints & suggestions about the AENT should be made to Baruch not posted here. This forum is for more important things than arguing over their plagiarism claims, though akhan Andrew is entitled defend his work and himself, which he has done. I don't think there's more to be said at this point, though we can carry on if we wish in a civil manner, but if things turn even nastier then I'm gonna have to lock the thread.
I think that closing it down might well be a good idea. It's not helping anything, it doesn't seem.