Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AENT 5th Editions Errors and Suggestions
#1
Shlama all,

Here is a rough draft of a list I have come up with pointing out several translation and typographical errors, as well as a few of my own suggestions. There's a couple times where I talk about theology in the footnotes, but I tried not to get into this too much and rather just focus on the text. I go into the footnotes only if it either relates directly to the text or it's something that I can't ignore (and I can ignore a fair amount given that my focus here is not on the theology of the footnotes).

EDIT: New link,
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/117246920/Aent-Errors">http://www.scribd.com/doc/117246920/Aent-Errors</a><!-- m -->

I'll keep using the AENT for a bit yet (some of the new footntoes are actually pretty good and edifying) so I may add to the list here and there, as well as give a complete review of the 5th edition volume in a bit, but until then, enjoy the list and let me know what you guys think.
Reply
#2
Thanks for putting that up, Brother. You did a fine job!
Reply
#3
"Unable to establish a connection to the server at netzari.angelfire.com."

Status.ws (Beta) "netzari.angelfire.com is down."
Reply
#4
SteveCaruso-
It was up earlier today.
Mebbe check back later?

CW
Reply
#5
:

Still down...

.
Reply
#6
Weird, that's never happened before. Sorry guys! Where's the best place to upload a PDF for everyone? I have a meeting tonight but will do it as soon as I can.
Reply
#7
If you start a Post, look or scroll down to just below the "Submit" button and you will see "Upload attachment".

CW
Reply
#8
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Weird, that's never happened before. Sorry guys! Where's the best place to upload a PDF for everyone? I have a meeting tonight but will do it as soon as I can.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/">http://www.scribd.com/</a><!-- m -->


Charles Wilson Wrote:If you start a Post, look or scroll down to just below the "Submit" button and you will see "Upload attachment".

CW
I have tried more than once to upload PDFs but it says that PDFs are not doable as attachments.
Reply
#9
The Texas RAT Wrote:I have tried more than once to upload PDFs but it says that PDFs are not doable as attachments.
Yeah, I had the same thing happen.

Thanks Tex! Looks like all of angelfire is down right now (network issues) and it has nothing to do with my website. Weird timing though. Anyway, here is the new upload,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/117246920/Aent-Errors">http://www.scribd.com/doc/117246920/Aent-Errors</a><!-- m -->

Edit - the original link works again - <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://netzari.angelfire.com/aent_errors.pdf">http://netzari.angelfire.com/aent_errors.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#10
I really think Roth and Baruch need to focus more on the translation itself than the appendix and footnotes like they seem to be. Don't get me wrong, footnotes are great (even if I disagree with them)! I care more about the translation itself though, the translational errors that have been brought out and the theological bias that can be seen within it must be excised from the AENT before focusing on other things. I don't want to see someone's theology in the text unless it is in the text. This is a literal translation, and should stay as such in as much areas of the translation as possible. I understand, they're human, but they should learn to manage the human error as much as possible. I'm speaking less about the honest mistranslations and typographical errors and more about the theological bias.

The AENT is less interpretive than Bauscher, Lamsa, and Alexander, but Roth still needs to try to be the better man and LIMIT his theological interpretation of the text to the footnotes section. A translation is only the Word of God as long as it agrees with the original text (whether you believe it to be the Greek or Syriac). I don't want the Word of God mixing in with the word of man in areas when this can be avoided. Just based on what I've seen in this list, I don't think I'm going to buy this disappointing update unless my current AENT ends up falling apart. I don't just want a better study Bible, I want a better translation! The updates should have been in order to make the translation better.
Reply
#11
Agreed. There's probably more that's been changed in the translation which I haven't found (I just did a quick flip and anything that caught my eyes I zeroed in on), but the translation does need work. We do have to be interpretive when we make translation choices sometimes, so there's a lot of Andrew's translation choices I agree with, and only blatantly obvious bias which adds words that get to me (and those we can count on probably one hand/two at the most). What I instead dislike is a lot of the syntax errors and other such things that really wouldn't have happened if Andrew did double check every word with the Aramaic when he took Younan and Murdock's work. There's just so much that's missing, out of place, poorly worded, etc. and it's been four years and five editions later!

What the AENT really needs is more people brought on to work on the translation. Since it is Netzari based, gathering together the most educated Netzari who support AENT to form a team and refine not only the translation, but offer additional viewpoints and insight within the footnotes... that would be fantastic. And very Jewish, since Jewish commentary often offers multiple explanations of things from different Rabbi's. The AENT would highly benefit from this. You're just always going to have problems when only one or two people are working on something and they limit their focus and emphasis. Especially when it comes to a translation!

On the bright side, this inspires me to spend more time in the classroom and just read from the original <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> I'll probably be doing that rather than continuing to dissect AENT.

I wonder if I could convince Magiera to put hers into a bilingual edition with nice paragraph formatting, high quality binding, "Bible paper", with thick long ribbon markers. Something like that I would be comfortable teaching and reading from in Bible studies, and any additional translation choices (eunuch VS faithful one in Acts as just one example) as well as the Eastern readings I could just quickly write in the margin. It would certainly be a lot quicker than Tex's whiteout idea with AENT. Oh, if I was retired and had all the time in the world...
Reply
#12
I agree that a degree of interpretation is necessary in every translation (whether formally or dynamically equivalent). I love the AENT, but it still isn't as accurate as it could be. Shouldn't the main concern of an Aramaic primacist be to bring forth as accurate of a translation of the Peshitta as possible?
Reply
#13
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Shouldn't the main concern of an Aramaic primacist be to bring forth as accurate of a translation of the Peshitta as possible?
Theoretically, but I see it as having turned out to be more of a vehicle for the Netzari faith. And, PTL, it helped to bring me into my calling (the Almighty can truly work through anything); though I have outgrown a fair amount of the theology in there.
Reply
#14
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:I wonder if I could convince Magiera to put hers into a bilingual edition with nice paragraph formatting, high quality binding, "Bible paper", with thick long ribbon markers. Something like that I would be comfortable teaching and reading from in Bible studies, and any additional translation choices (eunuch VS faithful one in Acts as just one example) as well as the Eastern readings I could just quickly write in the margin. It would certainly be a lot quicker than Tex's whiteout idea with AENT.
Luc being you have bought most if not all of the AENT editions, which one do you think was the better of them?

It seems one would have to buy one on eBay to get the best edition (being, by your reviews, Roth has been waxing theological the past couple of editions).

I have been left with the opinion that either the 1st or 2nd edition is the better of them.
Reply
#15
The Texas RAT Wrote:Luc being you have bought most if not all of the AENT editions, which one do you think was the better of them?
Well, the 5th edition probably is the best. Yeah, maybe there's some changes here and there in comparison to the earlier editions, but all of them (except for Acts 2:36) are footnoted. So, if you got a new edition, anything that's changed would just have an alternative viewpoint to compare with other translations and their notes. Nothing wrong with that. Besides, no matter which edition you would get, you will always end up agreeing with Roth on some points and disagreeing with him on other points; same as any Study Bible. So I say get the new one and just use it in comparison to everything else that's available to us. There is no golden or perfect translation anyway, right? The best we can do is just pick one and then write our own notes in it (this is where wide margin comes in handy, but AENT still works if you write small - get a pigment liner pen [0.1] as those work best).

The reason I said what I did about Magiera in comparison to your white out idea is because of all the syntax and typographical errors, not the theological waxing. The theological waxing wouldn't take long to fix with whiteout.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)