Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AENT Editions...compared
#1
I found this tonight, it may have already been posted in the Forum before, not sure... Here is a pretty detailed analysis of the various AENT Editions

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://netzari.angelfire.com/aent.html">http://netzari.angelfire.com/aent.html</a><!-- m -->

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#2
That's interesting! I wish Roth would actually release a GENUINE Interlinear of his translation. He terms his translation as an Interlinear when it is actually just a parallel version containing an English translation with the Aramaic source texts next to it.
Reply
#3
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:That's interesting! I wish Roth would actually release a GENUINE Interlinear of his translation. He terms his translation as an Interlinear when it is actually just a parallel version containing an English translation with the Aramaic source texts next to it.
Yeah but we have Bauscher's in Hebrew script (although without vowel points) and Magiera's in Estrangelo for that (or Matthew 1 - Acts 15 here at peshitta.org). You're right in that AENT is simply bilingual and not an interlinear though, but I haven't really seen it advertised as being an interlinear (but as you say, I do recall it being spoken of as an interlinear here and there).
Reply
#4
Roth referred to it as an interlinear in the introduction of the AENT (4th Edition is the one I have). The only interlinear of the Peshitta that is in true interlinear form is Paul Younan's project. It'd be nice if Roth actually did to an interlinear in a future version. I have the Jay P. Green Interlinear Bible and it is one of my favorite translations. A literal translation, as well as a more dynamic translation, along with an interlinear of the particular text you use is very useful. Green has a pretty literal translation that he made himself with his Interlinear Bible. They don't have any real dynamic translations of the Textus Receptus or the Peshitta though. It's interesting that the Peshitta is almost like a blend of the Critical Text and Majority Text. I know they don't use the Syriac manuscripts as much in textual criticism for the New Testament. Most modern translations take the Syriac into account for the Old Testament. I don't believe the Peshitta is the original of any of the Books of the Scripture, but I know would be a valuable source in the textual criticism of Matthew's Gospel and Hebrews.
Reply
#5
:

Sometimes we believe things that just aren't true...But the important Message gets through...in all languages.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.Dukhrana.com">http://www.Dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#6
Amen. The Peshitta is, indeed, as someone once put it, an undervalued Christian resource.
Reply
#7
Thirdwoe Wrote:I found this tonight, it may have already been posted in the Forum before, not sure... Here is a pretty detailed analysis of the various AENT Editions

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://netzari.angelfire.com/aent.html">http://netzari.angelfire.com/aent.html</a><!-- m -->

Shlama,
Chuck

If you go to Luc's profile page here at PeshittA.org you will see his website. Click on it and scroll 3/4 the way down to "OTHER
Sacred Name Bible Reviews and Netzarim Links" and click that then you see "The Aramaic English New Testament" is second to last on the list of resources. click that and you end up at the page you found. So in the future if you loose track of this link just go to Luc's profile page and follow his website url.

As for Roth doing an interlinear the more the merrier. It would seem to me that he could just leave the Aramaic text out of his version as to help cut down on cost and also lighten the book a bit. It has been purported that it is not a true copy of any Aramaic Codex known to exist anyway, so it is just taking up space between the bindings. If one feels a need to have the Aramaic text to study along with the English version I highly recommend that they obtain a true copy of the Khabouris Codex. As there is no need to study a 20th century concoction to see what the true ancient Aramaic Texts says. I like Roth's Version, so far as I can see from the sample pages and from what I have heard, but I could care less for his personal rendition of the Aramaic text as it is not a true copy of the Khabouris Codex or any other ancient Aramaic text known to exist. Study-er be ware. So before he even considers making an Interlinear he he needs to get his PeshittA straight first (or it too would be a big waste of space).

Chuck was it you that pointed this out about Roth's Aramaic Text? If so can you share the verses that he has reworded so that others will know when and where to take his Aramaic text seriously or not?
Reply
#8
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Amen. The Peshitta is, indeed, as someone once put it, an undervalued Christian resource.
Amen. I say this all the time and try to stress it to those who are either unconvinced or unconcerned with primacy because primacy aside it really is the truth. Under valued and under studied! I think it holds the most weight out of all the Syriac/Aramaic families as well.
Reply
#9
I believe it should especially be used for Matthew and Hebrews.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)