Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
David Bauscher Peshitta Translation
I'm wanting to get a little Peshitta collection together. I'm not an Aramaic primacist, but the scholarship and the Peshitta itself fascinates me. I already have the George Lamsa translation and I LOVE it. What is everyone's opinion o Bauscher's Interlinear translation and his Plain English translation. I also saw that there is an Interlinear-Plain English parallel. Are any of these, especially the parallel, any good?
Greetings SS2,

It's a crap shoot really. What are you looking for in a translation? A literal as possible translation or more of a thought for thought translation?

I would not spend any money on what you can first check out for free see if you feel that Mr. Bauscher has done as good a job as he could have done.

Both Dave Bauscher's Translation & Interlinear can be looked over here ---> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> If you need help finding it there, let me know and I can show you. But be it known, that Dave has some strange ideas about a few things, and it does come out in his work. For instance he believes that The Father and The Holy Spirit died spiritually during the hours of darkness before Jesus died physically on the Cross. He believes that GOD (The Trinity) died (ceased to exist)...and that the old Universe ceased to exist with Him when GOD died. And we now live in a New and Eternal Universe...where NO SIN exists and ALL SOULS are now saved. (Correct me Dave, when you read this, if I got that wrong, but this is what I understood you?re teaching to be in our long conversations on the subject.)

Also, Mrs. Janet Magiera has her Translation for free with the Nook Reader for PC program, which is free to download. Have a look at it, it?s very good for the most part...but it has a mix of both the Eastern Peshitta and the Western Peshitto readings.

The Lamsa version has a mix as well and sometimes goes off into interpretation, rather than translation...and sometimes he goes with a Greek reading, over what is in the Aramaic text.

Andrew Gabriel Roth has a Translation as well, which he stays with the Eastern Peshitta text as far as I have seen...but he is prone to interpret at times, based on his particular religious persuasions...which is seen very clearly in his copious notes on various subjects. If you think the same as he does on most things...then renderings like referring the Cross of Christ as a "stake" on which He was "Impaled" rather than Crucified...then you might like his work.

I say of these main 4 more Modern Translations of Lamsa, Bauscher, Magiera, and Roth...Mrs. Magiera's translation is the most careful, even though it is a mix of East and West in a few places (2 or 3) And like I said, you can check it out for free online with the Nook reader for PC.

For the Gospels and Acts, you can check with Paul Younan's Interlinear here at (to the right) for free, to compare. His is the Eastern Peshitta Text, which is the Original form and Paul knows the language, being his native tongue, unlike the others, except Lamsa.

BUT.... I say, if you REALLY want to know what is in the whole Eastern Peshitta and the variant forms of the Western Peshitto (in a few verses)...then THE BEST place to do this, as well as look over a few older Translations in English (Etheridge and Murdoch)...then you need to check this wonderful site out. ---> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

I can help you with that site as well, if you have trouble.

Shlama, (Peace)
I'm not Trinitarian anyway, but that is still a very strange idea! Lamsa's theology was strange too in some ways. The only one that really jumped out at me was the fact that Lamsa refers to demoniacs as lunatics or insane. I've witnessed demonic manifestations during exorcisms and I can tell you that it isn't merely insanity!!! I'm hoping that when Younan completes his translation that he'll publish it in hard copy. I've looked at Bauscher's translation a little bit and it seems good. I'm not a big fan of reading the Scriptures online instead of in solid form.

I read that Bauscher's commentaries were actually within the text. I'm sorry I ask so many questions but I'm really getting an even more avid interest in the Peshitta. I'm going to purchase the Aramaic-English New Testament (Roth translation) soon off of the internet, but I really wish that I could find it in stores.
Daves translation is quite ok. You can skip the explanation which is related to numerology.
Some pros. He thinks out of the box, and does not automatically stick to the traditional translation.
He explains and motivates why he translates some words differently and he both takes into account the Greek reading as well as the PEshitta reading for his motivation.

Some con: He uses Jehovah God at places where we find Mar-Ya (which is indeed a reference to the YHWH in the Hebrew Bible). It would have been an opportunity to use Jahweh, instead of that name which seems to have been deriven from a tradition that started in the middle-ages.
This thread popped up at the perfect time, and im grateful for Thirdwoe telling me where to find Dave B.'s translation. I like Dave's work due to his use of that oh so precious Crawford text (specifically Revelation), and that he does accurately appear to translate, at least to the point where all the Greek errors I remember being in the NT are gone in his.

I DONT agree with the Bible codes like I once did, but it doesnt matter whether hes right or wrong on that one-it has nothing to do with how good the current translation is-Im yet to find a major weird translation mistake by David B. (E.g. Him using "languages" instead of "tongues" is ACCURATE, languages=tongues)

I did NOT like Roth's NT. I paid for the 1st edition only to be reading something quite scrambled and messy, numerous typos, and wayyyyy too many hebraic terms put in that were really just for show, not necessary at all to include considering its an ENGLISH translation.

Fast foward to Roth's 4 edition, and Matthew 13:27 still reads as an error (putting YHWH in place of a regular "lord", which lets me know Im sure there are still many many more left-I'll save my 70 bucks this time.
I love the Semitic/Jewish language used in the Roth translation, especially the fact that he uses "YHWH" instead of Yahweh or Jehovah. I've been looking for a Bible translation that does that. The Roth translations seems to have been generally well-received.
I don't think its possible to not have some interpretation in ones translation work, which tends to go with what the translators beliefs are...this is why I have stoped looking to one translation for the answers. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I have found it much more rewarding to just study right from the Aramaic itself on the awesome <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
I also like <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> for camparing with the Greek and Latin texts...and if you wanted to compare the readings with what is found in the early Church Teachers can search all their quotations here ---> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

For the most part Dave does a good job in his translation, but not when his bias in his false doctrine shows up, and which comes out at times in his translation/interpretaion work. I prefer his Interlinear because of this, since it has less interpreting going on. Janet Magiera's Translation is much better than Dave's Translation over all and she has a Messianic version that is very nice.

Also Dave has a no notes option edition, if you wanted to buy his translation. Though most of his notes are rather good, some are not at all good. Reader beware.

Over all...I think Magiera's Translation work is the best...all things considered for an East/West edition.
Here is her Website which is quite hard to find: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

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=""></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.


Im not sure why it's so hard to just say: "I used James Murdoch's 1800s translation work and Paul Younan's Interlinear work, and Steven Silver's transcription work...and then edited these into the way I thought the text should read, "translating" the book of Galatians to match up with my particular religious beliefs, because if I left it Alone, it doesn?t, thus I am more an editor of others work in this version of the New Testament, than a translator."
Shlama Akhi Chuck:

On another note was it you that guided me towards
Paul Phillip Levertoff: Pioneering
Hebrew-Christian Scholar and Leader?

It's a PDF and it is incredible that a Chassidic JBJ took aim at the theology that would unite Jew and Gentile believer in Yeshua Mashikha. His approach sought to gently present a way that would make real fellowship available. What a scholar he was, Akhi Kabiba.

The fact that his translation isn't completely original doesn't bother me. Many of the modern day translations borrow from or build on other translations (such as Lamsa with the King James Version). I know that David Stern has a similar view of Torah observance to Andrew Roth. He admitted to getting pretty free with his translation, which I don't think is necessarily inaccurate. Here is an excerpt from David Stern's Complete Jewish Bible translation of Galatians 3:1-2,10-12-

'You stupid Galatians! Who has put you under a spell? Before your very eyes Yeshua the Messiah was clearly portrayed as having been put to death as a criminal! I want to you from you just this one thing: did you receive the Spirit by legalistic observance of Torah commands or by trusting in what you heard and being faithful to it?...For everyone who depends on legalistic observance of Torah commands lives under a curse, since it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the Scroll of the Torah." Now it is evident that no one comes to be declared righteous by God through legalism, since "The person who is righteous will attain life by trusting and being faithful." Furthermore, legalism is not based on trusting and being faithful, but on a [misuse of] the text that says, "Anyone who does these things will attain life through them."'

Here is the King James Version's translation of these verses:

"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?...For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

To answer an earlier question: I wish to say that I am fine with both formal (word-for-word) equivalence and dynamic (thought-for-thought) equivalence. I know that Roth's translation is supposed to be a more literal translation of the Peshitta. I'm guessing that Bauscher is more dynamic?

SS2, I'd say that Bauscher's is pretty literal, especially in his Interlinear version, but then again, he does tend to use interpretation rather than translation at times, which can be misleading, when one has an agenda and a false doctrine to teach. For instance (and I don't say this is a false doctrine), but when Jesus says "I am the Bread of Life", or "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"...dave adds his interpretation in the text there to read, "I AM THE LIVING GOD, the Bread of Life...John 6:35 or I AM THE LIVING GOD, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.... John 14:6

I do believe that Jesus is indeed The Living God, The Word manifested in the flesh...But I think that doing this to the text as he has done there is not proper. Look at John Chapters 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 in Dave's if you havent got a copy yet...and see what I mean.

Get all the versions like I have, and compare them all with what you find in the Aramaic MSS you can study at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and tell us what you find/think.


No, I have never heard of Paul Phillip Levertoff before, but will look into what he has to say. I think that we can have good relations with each other, Jew & Gentile believers in Messiah Y'shua...and I have no problem with Jewish people or even non-Jewish people (Gentiles) trying their best to walk in God's laws as laid out in the former Covenant, that would apply to people today under the New (better) Covenant, or as some would say, the Renewed Covenant....not to try to make sure their salvation though....and No person on earth can keep Torah 100% today anyway, even if they tried really really really hard to...and if they claim to do it, we know they are breaking it by bearing false witness...and we know what the curse is in the Law that says, if one point is broken, then the whole Law is broken. Thank God for The Messiah and His work of salvation!

I cannot seem to access Janet's NT to give it a cross reference to anything, but I doubt it'd be anything special.

Now that I think about it, I do remember Dave B.'s addition of "THE LIVING GOD" after the famous "I AM" statement. I think the idealogy is correct though, but yea, it doesnt belong literally. Small price to pay for a whole new testament based on pretty reliable Aramaic documents *ahem Crawford *ahem, a translation that is VERY readable, and clearly points out all the instances of MARYA/YHWH while fixing other well known Greek-based errors.

Straining at a gnat happens very often when it comes to translations. None are perfect, but many are still great, and this appears to be one of em.
I cannot seem to access Janet's NT to give it a cross reference to anything, but I doubt it'd be anything special.

Now that I think about it, I do remember Dave B.'s addition of "THE LIVING GOD" after the famous "I AM" statement. I think the idealogy is correct though, but yea, it doesnt belong literally. Small price to pay for a whole new testament based on pretty reliable Aramaic documents *ahem Crawford *ahem, a translation that is VERY readable, and clearly points out all the instances of MARYA/YHWH while fixing other well known Greek-based errors.

Straining at a gnat happens very often when it comes to translations. None are perfect, but many are still great, and this appears to be one of em.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)