Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New AENT Website
#1
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aent.org/">http://www.aent.org/</a><!-- m -->

It's very pretty. They have some nice videos talking about your standard things like rope VS camel (I have yet to watch them all). But, what I would really like to know is who is included among the following group,

"Over 1,000 leading language scholars and Bible students have rigorously dedicated their unrivaled expertise to the 5th edition of the AENT."

We all know Andrew and Baruch were all over it. Carmen Welker proof read it (1st edition). And people have e-mailed feedback and spelling mistakes have been fixed as more theology has been added over the years. But really, who are these leading language scholars and Bible students? Tim Hegg tore it apart looking at only a select handful of verses and one lady on amazon who is neither a leading language scholar of Bible student has a blog picking out all it's mistranslations. I made my own list back when I used the AENT a lot. So who really are these 1000+ people? If anyone knows, please post, but in the meantime I think I am going to send an e-mail. It would be really unkosher if this was simply a marketing ploy. And Torah is all about truth, right? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#2
Good to see you back, Luc! For some reason I also have a hard time buying the idea that thousands of experts have contributed to the AENT <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

I am trying to send an email to the website, but it won't go through. The AENT is a great version, but really needs a lot of work. Roth and Baruch need to work less on the commentary and supplementary material and more on the translation itself. Here are my main nit-picks with the AENT as it currently exists:

1. Typographical errors that could be easily corrected.

2. Obvious translation errors.

3. Inconsistent transliterations.

4. Blatant theological bias in the translation.

5. The Aramaic and English texts need to line up perfectly. It makes no sense to retain the Khabouris reading in the English and the 1905 reading in the Aramaic (or in vice-verse).

6. Matthew 21:4 needs to be corrected to line up with the Eastern text.

Right now, I think Glenn David Bauscher's The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English, Janet Magiera's Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Translation, and the Way International's Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament, and George Lamsa's Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text are the highest quality modern English Peshitta translations (not saying any of them are perfect, but they are professionally done). They are all very easy to read despite their literalness and are not riddled with typographical and grammatical errors. The AENT will definitely occupy a spot on that list of mine when these things are corrected. A lot of the translation errors were probably carried over from Paul's Interlinear and James Murdock's translation. It just aggravates me that the AENT has been out since 2008 and a lot of the most important errors have NOT been fixed. I want a better, more high quality translation of the Peshitta New Testament more than I want more of Andrew Gabriel Roth's commentary (which is interesting at times and flat out ignorant in other spots, in my opinion).
Reply
#3
Thanks <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Yeah, much of the mistranslations were carried over from those base texts. Andrew said he cross checked every word, but it doesn't seem like it when you start noticing some of the errors that were carried over. And I agree 100% with your points; I have made the exact same points before in my criticism of the AENT. My additional point would be that if we wanted to go the Jewish way about things, then several Rabbi's or scholars should contribute their theology and then you can have multiple viewpoints within the footnotes and of course a refined text. Judaism has done this for centuries and it really helps to destroy the spirit of division because now you have several viewpoints as opposed to merely an "us (Netzari) VS them (Christianity)" text. This is a huge problem with the tone of AENT that turns off a lot of people who have genuine hearts.

The form didn't work for me either, so I sent an e-mail to <!-- e --><a href="mailto:info@aent.org">info@aent.org</a><!-- e -->, the old contact address.
Reply
#4
Sometimes he says stuff that leaves me scratching my head. He has a very confrontational tone in his commentary, and as you said, the commentary turns people away from the AENT as a whole. I've seen him make some very flawed observations of Christianity and sometimes he gets flat out offensive, like Christo-pagans. I really wish he would remove that crap from the volume.
Reply
#5
Amen!
Reply
#6
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:... ... ... I would really like to know is who is included among the following group,

"Over 1,000 leading language scholars and Bible students have rigorously dedicated their unrivaled expertise to the 5th edition of the AENT."

We all know Andrew and Baruch were all over it. Carmen Welker proof read it (1st edition). And people have e-mailed feedback and spelling mistakes have been fixed as more theology has been added over the years. But really, who are these leading language scholars and Bible students? ... ... ... If anyone knows, please post, ... ... ... It would be really unkosher if this was simply a marketing ploy. And Torah is all about truth, right? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Luc, it was for this very reason I had over the years been trying to expose Roth's AENT as a fraud, because the rest of the world is watching and they are not stupid! If we as beleievers blindly praise such as a great work while trying to downplay the obvious white elephant (thinking not to hurt the common cause), the world will come to see us and our beliefs as the fraud the AENT is, and discard the baby with the bath water. We can not stand by the wicked and expect to be counted as righteous. All things exposed upfront about the author I still think his plagerised (so-called tranlational) work is for the most part the best translation out there as of today only because it is based off of the scolarly works of Younan and Murdoch. Yes all translations have their flaws but it would seem that the AENT has the least at present. And yes there is room for improvement in the AENT for sure. And yes a dog is a dog, a spade is a spade, and Roth as you put it is unkosher in his ethics as the evidence so clearly points out.

I happen to have the 4th Edition of the AENT and 99% of all the problems that people pointed out about the 1st thru the 3rd Editions are still in the 4th, so do not expect the 5th (or 6th Elohim forbid) to be any differnt.

As far as people being turned off by the footnoots there is always people out there that will not agree with any translaters opinion and therefore the best thing a translater could do is put their footnotes in a seperate book altogether. That way the translation would be able to appeal to a greater audience, and if one cared for the translaters opinion they could simply get the commentary.

For a zip file with PDFs that HONESTLY deal with the AENT's mis-translation (and the fact that Roth is not the one whom made these mistakes, but rather the two people of whom Roth copied their works instead), from people with an Aramaic Primacy veiw of things, see:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.wuala.com/TheTexasRAT/AENT%20Errors/">https://www.wuala.com/TheTexasRAT/AENT%20Errors/</a><!-- m --> <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->
Reply
#7
It's not the fact that I disagree with his footnotes that turns me off of hem, but his attitude when he expresses his opinion. He comes across as rather arrogant and confrontational.
Reply
#8
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:It's not the fact that I disagree with his footnotes that turns me off of hem, but his attitude when he expresses his opinion. He comes across as rather arrogant and confrontational.
Exactly.

Speaking of plagiarism TexasRat, I love how you took my document and blacked out a bunch of stuff and then added it to your own zipfile. Kind of not so kosher. What's up with that?
Reply
#9
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:It's not the fact that I disagree with his footnotes that turns me off of hem, but his attitude when he expresses his opinion. He comes across as rather arrogant and confrontational.
Exactly.

Speaking of plagiarism TexasRat, I love how you took my document and blacked out a bunch of stuff and then added it to your own zipfile. Kind of not so kosher. What's up with that?

For one I did not take your name off of it and put my name to it. And the reason I teporarily highlighted some stuff different colors was due to pertenant information on the subject of AENT mistakes. The highlighted black is because your document was to try and help Roth make his version better not only pointing out mistakes but also by giving hints of what could have been done slightly different. The black highlighted stuff is such as how Roth could have bracketed [of], etc.. which had nothing to do with the mistakes in the version. So I did that (which by the way anyone can unhighlight it at anytime [its not perminate]) to show off the other stuff pertanant to the case in point. So being the zipfile was aimed at the AENT mistakes, and not little helpful hints type stuff, is why I highlighted in black some of your things so that people could get through it faster on topic. Other than the temperary hightlighting it is just the way you made it, weblink and all. And again I did not take your name off of it, you did not put it on it. Nor did I put my name to it, simply passing info on. If you like I can perminately delete the black highlighted stuff and also delete the overlapping stuff in your doc that is covered in the other docs, and putting in a bunch of "... ... ..." until it is cut down to meet the "fare information act" of sharing a small percent of a doc (verbatim), after all I was just trying to show that there was more than one person passing out lists of the problems in the AENT. I know you spent a lot of time making the whole thing but some of it is not pertanant to the point I was trying to help other people see. Had nothing to do with your doc being flawed and needing editing or censoring. So let me know if its alright by you if I pass your doc with temp highlighting, or if you would rather I perminatly hack it all up to make the point. I thouight it would be more kosher not to hack it up but if you think other wise (?) say the word and I'll make changes that according to law that are undisputedly kosher. No biggy on this end. I remember the day back when you took Roth's side and I was trying to get you to see what you posted here in this thread. And here you are now seemingly coming around to what I had been saying all along. And I am still but trying to help others see if possible. That being while I think the AENT is the best availible to this date I do not think it is without mistakes as Roth makes it out to be, and that Roth did not do a word for word translation period. The mistakes are those from the original translters (i.e. Murdock and Younan) not the editor(i.e. Roth). And that Roth was being deseptive by making the claim that he did a word for word translation. And now by giving false credit to a group of 1000 fictious co-editers. So Luc as far as plagerizism goes THE/A [not my] ZIPFILE is but in the spirit of sharing information, and that alone, (like that of Linux - free to all).
Reply
#10
So what of the Marya, Mar Ya or Mar Yah Deception now?

I have added a note to the front of my AENT Fifth Edition:-

MARI ? My Lord ?


Mara Marya Maran Mareh

Lord Master owner (the Lord) (our Lord) (his Lord)

I have learnt this as root, lexeme, and morphemes. Am I now taught Peshitta (first steps in) correctly?

Regards

Bro Aldred
Reply
#11
Aldred Emmans Wrote:So what of the Marya, Mar Ya or Mar Yah Deception now?

I have added a note to the front of my AENT Fifth Edition:-

MARI ? My Lord ?


Mara Marya Maran Mareh

Lord Master owner (the Lord) (our Lord) (his Lord)

I have learnt this as root, lexeme, and morphemes. Am I now taught Peshitta (first steps in) correctly?

Regards

Bro Aldred
Aldred, for the best information on MarYa read the following link from page 8 thru 14:
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2569&hilit=marya&start=105#p17068">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2569&hilit=marya&start=105#p17068</a><!-- l -->
Reply
#12
The Texas RAT Wrote:
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:It's not the fact that I disagree with his footnotes that turns me off of hem, but his attitude when he expresses his opinion. He comes across as rather arrogant and confrontational.
Exactly.

Speaking of plagiarism TexasRat, I love how you took my document and blacked out a bunch of stuff and then added it to your own zipfile. Kind of not so kosher. What's up with that?

For one I did not take your name off of it and put my name to it. And the reason I teporarily highlighted some stuff different colors was due to pertenant information on the subject of AENT mistakes. The highlighted black is because your document was to try and help Roth make his version better not only pointing out mistakes but also by giving hints of what could have been done slightly different. The black highlighted stuff is such as how Roth could have bracketed [of], etc.. which had nothing to do with the mistakes in the version. So I did that (which by the way anyone can unhighlight it at anytime [its not perminate]) to show off the other stuff pertanant to the case in point. So being the zipfile was aimed at the AENT mistakes, and not little helpful hints type stuff, is why I highlighted in black some of your things so that people could get through it faster on topic. Other than the temperary hightlighting it is just the way you made it, weblink and all. And again I did not take your name off of it, you did not put it on it. Nor did I put my name to it, simply passing info on. If you like I can perminately delete the black highlighted stuff and also delete the overlapping stuff in your doc that is covered in the other docs, and putting in a bunch of "... ... ..." until it is cut down to meet the "fare information act" of sharing a small percent of a doc (verbatim), after all I was just trying to show that there was more than one person passing out lists of the problems in the AENT. I know you spent a lot of time making the whole thing but some of it is not pertanant to the point I was trying to help other people see. Had nothing to do with your doc being flawed and needing editing or censoring. So let me know if its alright by you if I pass your doc with temp highlighting, or if you would rather I perminatly hack it all up to make the point. I thouight it would be more kosher not to hack it up but if you think other wise (?) say the word and I'll make changes that according to law that are undisputedly kosher. No biggy on this end. I remember the day back when you took Roth's side and I was trying to get you to see what you posted here in this thread. And here you are now seemingly coming around to what I had been saying all along. And I am still but trying to help others see if possible. That being while I think the AENT is the best availible to this date I do not think it is without mistakes as Roth makes it out to be, and that Roth did not do a word for word translation period. The mistakes are those from the original translters (i.e. Murdock and Younan) not the editor(i.e. Roth). And that Roth was being deseptive by making the claim that he did a word for word translation. And now by giving false credit to a group of 1000 fictious co-editers. So Luc as far as plagerizism goes THE/A [not my] ZIPFILE is but in the spirit of sharing information, and that alone, (like that of Linux - free to all).
No, that's fine, I'm not too concerned about it, I was just wondering why. But in the future it's usually a good idea if you ask the author first.

Shalom!
Reply
#13
So I've received a response to my inquiry about the list of leading language scholars and Bible students.

"I couldn't begin to list all the contributors to the AENT... I've retained some key contributor email since 1998 (over 16,000)...for personal reasons many have chosen to be anonymous and refused credits... many including myself view the AENT as an "open source" project for the benefit of the Body of Mashiyach... some brothers invested years of research that I distilled into single footnotes... we've had tremendous support and input from nearly everyone at peshitta.org and personal letters from the COE... it doesn't get much better than that... but I'm hoping to interview some of the contributors going forward.

No 6th Edition on the horizon."

So there you have it, for what it's worth. I know support for this project was big here back in 06-08, which is likely the reference being made to here. I was unaware of any COE recognition of sorts. If anyone from the COE is reading and can confirm that, that would be awesome.

It's too bad no 6th edition is on the horizon though, otherwise with all the feedback that's been compiled by myself and others could put the open source project idea to the test. I've always thought as well that an awesome idea would include multiple viewpoints on the same topic when it came to the footnotes, a very Jewish thing (Rabbi so and so says this, but Rabbi so and on disagrees and says this). This would be extremely useful when it comes to Sacred Name issues, divinity of Mashiach, and places like Colossians 2:15 where bias enters the text and Michael Roods dubious understanding of it is used as an explanation (Tim Hegg does a much better job exploring the issue here). But I will say that I agree with the remark that contribution to footnotes has been made by many people, because knowing Andrew's tone and theology in some of his other books, there is sometimes a distinct turn from that in the AENT footnotes. The theology and contributions is nonetheless no where near as balanced and unbiased as I would like to see though.
Reply
#14
They're really leaving the AENT in a very flawed state, aren't they?
Reply
#15
Yeah... funny story though, I thought I was done with the AENT, but the girl I'm courting and will likely marry really likes it and wants to update her 3rd edition to a 5th edition and read it together with me. To really see the irony in this, you have to realize that I was dating a Baptist girl back when the first edition AENT came out, a time where I was a bit obsessed with it as a new "Messianic". And so when I bought her one as I really wanted her to read it with me, it actually caused a major rift in our relationship because of the divisive tone. Oh how things change, haha.

This time I'm on the same page theologically though, so in going through it with her I'll help her update all the mistakes and it'll be a good opportunity to discuss the finer points of theology when it comes to key footnotes on certain hot topics. It should actually be a good time!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)