Setting the record straight

[Christina]

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

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.

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!

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.

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."

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.

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!