Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Where is Roth?
#16
:

Quote:As far as I was aware I think it's the 1905 critical edition though, so wouldn't that explain why it doesn't read like any single manuscript?

Well, it?s a mixed bag Luc...I mean, you have his revision of Shamasha Paul's interlinear renderings there, which comes from a certain Aramaic text, then his revision of Murdoch's mid 1800s translation there, which was based on a certain manuscript/manuscripts, 50 years prior to the 1905 text. Then you have his version of Galatians, said to be Roth's own translation based on a certain text.

So, the whole thing is one big patch work like I said. I don't know how much reflects the Khabouris, or the 1905...you would have to go verse by verse and figure it all out...but, just knowing where the base text that he edits comes from, which he altered as he thought best, makes it certain that it's a brand new Aramaic text version, which just came into being with his work. You can see this not only in his edited English text, but the Aramaic text as well, which is not the same as any Aramaic text we know of in all places. So it is a new critical Aramaic text.

Does Andrew believe he is "restoring" or "renewing" the Aramaic text/English translation to read as he believes it originally read?

Otherwise, he has made his own version of The Peshitta that reads like no other Manuscript of The Aramaic Text. This is disturbing to me, Luc. I mean, how many New Testaments are there?

Blessings,
Chuck

.
Reply
#17
Thirdwoe Wrote::

Quote:As far as I was aware I think it's the 1905 critical edition though, so wouldn't that explain why it doesn't read like any single manuscript?

Well, it?s a mixed bag Luc...I mean, you have his revision of Shamasha Paul's interlinear renderings there, which comes from a certain Aramaic text, then his revision of Murdoch's mid 1800s translation there, which was based on a certain manuscript/manuscripts, 50 years prior to the 1905 text. Then you have his version of Galatians, said to be Roth's own translation based on a certain text.
Yeah, you're not the only one to notice this. One of the most vehement critics of the AENT that frequents the amazon review page points out the same thing. I'll be taking a closer look in my own studies though when I get the new edition, referencing both Magiera (I use her interlinear and dictionaries when needed) and the infamous "Red Book". Mostly for my own learning, but if it helps improve AENT, bonus!
Reply
#18
:

What is the Red Book? The CoE's Printed Aramaic New Testament?

And I don't think Roth's version is without its merits...he at least chose to go with most of the Eastern readings that were not in his Murdoch base translation...where Bauscher chose to keep all the western readings in and even add one which is in no Aramaic text. And for the most part Roth tries to be as literal as possible, which is best I think. I guess I had alot of hope built up for it, and when I got a copy, it was a let down on a number of levels. I still like it better than Bauschers and Lamsa's, but not as much as Magiera's, which even though it goes west most of the time, it is without doctrinal bias as far as I can see.

Lets hope the new edition has worked out most of the bugs...

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#19
Thirdwoe Wrote::
What is the Red Book? The CoE's Printed Aramaic New Testament?
No, it's the old parallel Aramaic text w/Hebrew translation of the Peshitta (NT only) by the Aramaic Scriptures Research Society (sold by the Bible Society in Israel). It's a good word-for-word literal translation into Hebrew which helps tons for a guy like me whose Hebrew is a gazillion times better than my Aramaic (for now).

Yeah, I can understand the let down for sure. I know Roth originally wanted just to post his commentary up on the web and then his webmaster encouraged him to publish it (they said this on GLC), and so I think over the next three years that was when Murdock and Younan were used to patch together the translation for the sake of getting the commentary out there. But, the errors oftentimes I think are not intentional but just things that were missed in the patch work process. He certainly did a better job IMO than the other supposed Aramaic based translations that Hebrew Roots has flung out there (I'm sure you've seen at least one them). But anyway, since Andrew and Baruch are open to feedback and I want to improve my language skills, I figure it's a win-win situation if I dissect some of it.

And Magiera, I agree, has very little bias. I always enjoy cross referencing her work (quick question though: is her standard translation and/or Messianic version the same lulu-type binding and paper as her concordance/dictionary/interlinears? I'm a sucker for a nicely bound book!)
Reply
#20
Okay, I went back and checked last night, and the Aramaic text is the 1905 critical edition, but edited to line up with the more ancient eastern readings in some places (like Acts 20:28). But in other palces where it's merely a variation in spelling or vowel pointing, he left it alone. So you're right, it's a patchwork rather than a manuscript, same as all the Greek texts that everyone translates from for the "major league bibles" out there (NA-27, etc.). But unlike the Greek, the varience isn't much with Aramaic, right? And so having the translation come from different sources for Younan, Murdock and then his Galatians shouldn't be much of a problem. Plus, even fi we look at a manuscript like Khabouris, well, a later scribe amde corections to it anyway, so it is also (to an extent) a "patchwork" sort of job. But the patchwork nonetheless makes it more accurate. The other thing I should mention as well is that most of the errors I've seen are things carried over from Younan or Murdock and have nothing to do with Roth or his supposed agenda that some criticize him for. And since I'm well beyond the years of trying to find the perfect manuscript or translation but rather just enjoy using different translations and studying the original languages, for me it'll be a fun project doing some comparisons. I'll post my findings for the latest edition here (I'll start a new thread) and then forward them on to Roth as well for a future edition improvement.
Reply
#21
:

That would be great Luc...

I would love to compare The Yonan Codex, and these two Peshitta Manuscripts below, with the readings of The Khabouris

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library,_Add._14470">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Li ... Add._14470</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library,_Add._14448">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Li ... Add._14448</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#22
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:The other thing I should mention as well is that most of the errors I've seen are things carried over from Younan or Murdock and have nothing to do with Roth or his supposed agenda that some criticize him for.
If Roth would have done a word for word translational work as he claims Murdoch's and Younan's mistakes would not be present as Roth would have caught them(as y'all are) and corrected them, but being his version carries their mistakes shows that he lied about doing a translation!!! Matter of fact it seems all of his mistranslating of MarYah where it should just be lord is because a word processor was used and it can not differentiate the difference where Murdoch and Younan used capital letters, also Murdoch sometimes used smaller cap lord for MarYah, again if Roth did as he claims he would have caught it.

Perfect examples of Roth using a word processor as opposed to doing a word for word personal reveiw:
Thirdwoe Wrote:In Rev 11:4, Roth changes the Aramaic reading "Mara" =Master, into "Marya" =Master-Yah where he has "...which stand before Master YHWH of the earth." But should be "...which stand before The Master of the whole earth." As Bauscher and Magiera have it, and which the text actually states.

No note for Rev 11:4 in the edition I have...but maybe he has fixed it by now?
Murdoch has Lord here so it seems as if Roth used a word processor to change all instances of Lord to Master YHWH, and as for no footnote - he can not footnote what he has no clue of.

Thirdwoe Wrote:In Rev 14:10, Roth has "...the wine of the wrath of Elohim..." But the text actually reads "...the wine of the wrath of Marya (Master Yah)..." both Bauscher and Magiera have the right reading, though they use the form of Marya that they like..."The Lord Jehovah" (B) and The LORD (M).
Here Murdoch has God instead of MarYah. Roth has Elohim(?). A word processor looking to change God to Elohim did its job, but Roth would have picked this up if He was doing what he claimed to have done!!! So again this mistake would seem like the results of a word processor.

Thirdwoe Wrote:In Rev 14:13, Roth has "...that die in Master YHWH from now on." But the text actually reads d'Maran = The Master?so it should read thus. "...who die (or depart) in The Master from now on." Which both Bauscher and Magiera have in their translations of the same text that Roth says he uses. Again no note in Roth's edition that I have?
Murdoch has Lord here and once again no footnote. But how can Roth be expected to footnote something he has never taken note of to start with? Mistakes like this is what one would expect from a word processor.

I am sure as y'all continue to critique Roth's version y'all will find more and more examples just like this.

So now what we have is one whom lies and a version that he sloppily did.

Luc instead of you doing all the work and giving the gory to Roth you should instead take the Murdoch and Younan translations and correct them yourself. After all, why should Roth get rich off of the work of others? Credit should go where credit is due. Roth only deserves credit for his own actions. And on the bright side you can give the world a so-called reversed Murdoch version of the Eastern PeshittA (with the Western 5) based off of scholarly convention. This way when people sing your praises it won't be false praises.
Reply
#23
:

Is Luc working on a translation?

And if you have found mistakes in the Peshitta.org interlinear, please let Shamasha Paul know about it, as I'm sure he would want to fix them.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#24
:

Quote:Plus, even if we look at a manuscript like Khabouris, well, a later scribe amde corections to it anyway, so it is also (to an extent) a "patchwork" sort of job. But the patchwork nonetheless makes it more accurate.

Are there corrections by a later scribe to the Kahbouris? I know that a few whole pages that are in another script, which looks to be a later work, but it may be that the pages were damaged and needed to be replaced, rather than needing to be corrected. I don't know if the reason is stated in the codex.

.
Reply
#25
Thirdwoe Wrote::
Is Luc working on a translation?
Ha, no, I would not dare take on the task of doing a translation alone, nor do I have anywhere near the time. I'm doing this merely to improve my language skills and work together with other believers (shevet achim gam yachad!).

I don't think Roth did a simple word processor replacement though. In the 1st edition at the end of Revelations there is still "Lord" in the text (where as typically Roth renders that "Master" unless it's Marya).

Thirdwoe Wrote::
Are there corrections by a later scribe to the Kahbouris? I know that a few whole pages that are in another script, which looks to be a later work, but it may be that the pages were damaged and needed to be replaced, rather than needing to be corrected. I don't know it the reason is stated in the codex.
Yup! According to dukhrana,

"In a careful reading of the entire manuscript during the time of transcription, I noted several grammatical differences, and some few synonyms, but there are only a handful of errors in the entire manuscript. All but one have been corrected by another, later scribal hand. "

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/khabouris/">http://dukhrana.com/khabouris/</a><!-- m -->

Shlama <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#26
I would like to know where these "handful" of corrected errors are in the text. We can check them with the other manuscripts. Do you have a list you can provide us with Stephen?

It seems to me, that when a Manuscript had too many errors and missing parts, or wrong readings in them, they got shelved, buried, or scratched off, to make use of the sheets for something else. And so, being that there were just a few mistakes in the Khabouris, it was kept for spiritual use among the faithful, but corrected as needed.

Again, I'm not against Roth's version, even if it is from various sources, just that what I've seen in it needs to be fixed and washed clean of all error and bias before I can use it, or can truly recommend its use...same with Bauscher's, and Lamsa's versions to less and more degrees.

And, even with clean translation, no translation is going to be without its problems, when going from one language to the other, but it can be as close to the Aramaic Text as possible, without personal bias, if the readings are literal and not interpretive. But then again, too literal a reading, and you can hardly understand it at all. This is true of Jahn's version in many places I've seen...where you need a translation to understand his translation. But it's useful, in seeing some of the idioms not seen when translated in most versions.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#27
Thirdwoe Wrote:And, even with clean translation, no translation is going to be without its problems, when going from one language to the other, but it can be as close to the Aramaic Text as possible, without personal bias, if the readings are literal and not interpretive.
There always has to be a level of interpretation when translating though. It's unavoidable because some words mean certain things depending on the context, so it's up to the translator to decipher that context and translate accordingly. There will never be a text that is void of bias. If there was, it would be misinterpreted by those reading it anyway because certain words are meant to be understood certain ways depending once again on context and the intended meaning of the original author. And both of those things you cannot ascertain from the text alone without any additional knowledge of cultural background and language, hence the limitation of translations and holding to them in a "sola scriptura" sense (which is an oxy-moron most of the time anyway).
Reply
#28
:

True, we should be thankful that we are so blessed by all the tools we have in this age to ascertain the true meaning of the text...but if that fails too, we always have The Holy Spirit, to guide us into ALL Truth. No matter what the mistakes and false interpretations?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#29
Thirdwoe Wrote::

True, we should be thankful that we are so blessed by all the tools we have in this age to ascertain the true meaning of the text...but if that fails too, we always have The Holy Spirit, to guide us into ALL Truth. No matter what the mistakes and false interpretations?

Shlama,
Chuck
Amen v'amen!
Reply
#30
I think the Magiera and Roth translations are the best (of the recent) translations. I wish Roth wasn't so obsessed with trying to tell us to keep the Mosaic Torah (which is clearly contradicted by Scripture, even in his own translation). Bauscher's Plain English New Testament isn't as literal as Roth's is, therefore it is easier to read. His translation of Matthew 5:3 is incorrect in the Plain English version, but is correct in the Interlinear (another example of Brother Chuck being correct in his views on Bauscher's translation work). I love using the Lamsa Bible, but it isn't the best out there. I'm in school right now with the Lamsa Bible and the Murdock New Testament.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)