Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Etheridge vs. Murdock
My copy of "The Syrian Churches With a Literal Translation of the Four Gospels" and his "The Apostolical Acts and Epistles, Which Are Added the Remaining Epistles, and the Book of Revelation After" should be arriving soon from Amazon. I'm hoping to order the Murdock New Testament sometime within the next few weeks. Based on what I've seen, I prefer the Etheridge translation. I like the fact that he retains the Semitic terminology (even though Jeshu probably isn't an accurate transliteration of the Aramaic name) like Meshikha and Alaha in the translation. I know Roth states that Etheridge's translation is unreliable, but I'm assuming that is due to the fact that Etheridge most likely didn't believe the Torah was essential. Which one do you all believe is more accurate?

They both tend to lean to the West...less so Etheridge I think...but we can check the Parallel Online version of both translations at link below.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
I haven't read as much of the Murdock translation, but Etheridge seems like he translated in a VERY literal fashion. Sometimes the English doesn't flow very smoothly. I really like what I've seen.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)