04-28-2012, 10:41 PM
Shlama Khulkon:
Buyer beware. I hate to be the one to burst your bubbles, but it is obviously not well known that Andrew Roth's AENT is not his pure translation but primarily a compilation of James Murdock's 1852 translation and Paul Younan's Interlinear translation up to Acts 16. Roth added Hebraic sounding names as well as YHVH in place of MarYa. He also used my transcription of the Khabouris extensively, only informing me after the fact, for which I received credit in the first printing. Roth translated short, portions of Galatians to conform to his Nazarene Judaic beliefs concerning Torah Observance.
Roth's claim to fame is his copious comments and notes which to some, including myself have a marked anti-Christian polemic, to his chagrin. I'm surprised that after all of this time Roth has not come clean with an introductory page devoted to a disclaimer explaining that the book is a compilation rather than a translation. This may come as a shock to some, but it is true.
This is not at all a put-down of Andrew Gabriel Roth. He has worked hard over the years, but it's wrong to deliberately use word for word/verbatim material from a previous established author, old or new and call it your own. It is not enough to change the names to make them sound more Jewish. If you have his book Akhi SS2, you can prove this for yourself by comparing his compilation word for word with James Murdock's translation from Acts 17 to the end of Hebrews at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m --> and Paul Younan's Interlinear translation on this web-site from Matthew 1 to Acts 16.
I most certainly do not agree with some of David G. Bauscher's translation and theology, but as I understand his translation it is completely original. David found his own fascinating way of putting the Aramaic Peshitta/Peshitto into his own words. Kudos to you Akhi David. His notes and Comments are all his own, where credit is given. However, In my honest opinion his theology is rubbish, his Bible Codes are misleading and his translation takes too many liberties to be considered of any intrinsic value. David Bauscher's dependence on the Crawford is partly my fault. I gave him a copy when he joined my MS-2 Affiliate as I did for Andrew Roth.
(Manuscript Syriac 2, from J.R.U.L.M-Manchester, England).
My theology and translation preference aside, this is factual information concerning the whereabouts and published use of the Crawford Codex. The microfilm and disc containing each and every page were mine and distributed to a few scholars including Andrew Gabriel Roth and David Bauscher. The Crawford Codex is for the most part the Peshitta text and it is also the oldest complete 27 book New Testament. The Western Five, it should be known by now, are a translation from the Greek, not Aramaic. David Bauscher is convinced that the Crawford Codex is in its entirety the original New Testament. This , according to John Gwynn has been proven false as concerns the Western Five.
Shlama,
Stephen
Buyer beware. I hate to be the one to burst your bubbles, but it is obviously not well known that Andrew Roth's AENT is not his pure translation but primarily a compilation of James Murdock's 1852 translation and Paul Younan's Interlinear translation up to Acts 16. Roth added Hebraic sounding names as well as YHVH in place of MarYa. He also used my transcription of the Khabouris extensively, only informing me after the fact, for which I received credit in the first printing. Roth translated short, portions of Galatians to conform to his Nazarene Judaic beliefs concerning Torah Observance.
Roth's claim to fame is his copious comments and notes which to some, including myself have a marked anti-Christian polemic, to his chagrin. I'm surprised that after all of this time Roth has not come clean with an introductory page devoted to a disclaimer explaining that the book is a compilation rather than a translation. This may come as a shock to some, but it is true.
This is not at all a put-down of Andrew Gabriel Roth. He has worked hard over the years, but it's wrong to deliberately use word for word/verbatim material from a previous established author, old or new and call it your own. It is not enough to change the names to make them sound more Jewish. If you have his book Akhi SS2, you can prove this for yourself by comparing his compilation word for word with James Murdock's translation from Acts 17 to the end of Hebrews at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m --> and Paul Younan's Interlinear translation on this web-site from Matthew 1 to Acts 16.
I most certainly do not agree with some of David G. Bauscher's translation and theology, but as I understand his translation it is completely original. David found his own fascinating way of putting the Aramaic Peshitta/Peshitto into his own words. Kudos to you Akhi David. His notes and Comments are all his own, where credit is given. However, In my honest opinion his theology is rubbish, his Bible Codes are misleading and his translation takes too many liberties to be considered of any intrinsic value. David Bauscher's dependence on the Crawford is partly my fault. I gave him a copy when he joined my MS-2 Affiliate as I did for Andrew Roth.
(Manuscript Syriac 2, from J.R.U.L.M-Manchester, England).
My theology and translation preference aside, this is factual information concerning the whereabouts and published use of the Crawford Codex. The microfilm and disc containing each and every page were mine and distributed to a few scholars including Andrew Gabriel Roth and David Bauscher. The Crawford Codex is for the most part the Peshitta text and it is also the oldest complete 27 book New Testament. The Western Five, it should be known by now, are a translation from the Greek, not Aramaic. David Bauscher is convinced that the Crawford Codex is in its entirety the original New Testament. This , according to John Gwynn has been proven false as concerns the Western Five.
Shlama,
Stephen