Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
David Bauscher Peshitta Translation
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
The Texas RAT Wrote:I do know that Paul says that anybody can use his text at any time without permission and that Murdock's translation is in the public domain, but I have not seen where Roth has given credit to Paul's or Murdock's translations, or comes out and says that Paul's plain English and Murdock's translations were used as underlying texts.
From page v. of the AENT (all four editions),

"To retain as much consistency as possible, Paul Younan's translation has been [u]compared from Matthew 1 to Acts 15 and James Murdock's translation for the remainder, each word has been cross-checked with Aramaic[/u]. In some cases, both sources are woven together into this translation, under a unifying editorial version and approach."
Compared is not the same as saying that he revised the translations of Younan and Murdock!

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:And from the AENT website,

"Compiled, Edited & Translated with consultation to both Ancient and Modern Authorities including: The Khabouris Codex and the 1905 Edition of the Syriac New Testament by the British and Foreign Bible Society."
Again he is (very) vague as to admitting that he barely edited the other translations.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:While it's true that (at the expense of promotion) Roth could be a little more upfront about these things (no one is arguing that),
Seems to be unanimous then that Andrew has told " a story" about the FACT that he is by no means a translator, yet but only an editor instead!

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:the whole Roth-bashing is getting a little old and we're all familiar here with what he did and what went on.
I just saw this for the first time (See quotes below) and decided to check the text to see if it were true and I found out that it was to the best of my ability to check Andrew'w text, as I only have access to his free sample pages.
Stephen Silver Wrote: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.
Thirdwo Wrote: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."

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:The focus of the AENT is more so the commentary that Roth provides,
Yes I would agree that the foot notes are good and can/should be studied, but this is no excuse for claiming to be a translator instead of an editor!

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:and I think originally he wanted to just post the commentary on his website only to have his webmaster convince him to publish it instead, and then three years later we have the AENT.
Yes Roth readily admits this matter.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Younan and Murdock were likely used as time-saving aids to get the commentary published. Similar in some ways to how theologians will use a base translation like NASB to publish their own study bibles, the only difference is that Roth was able to edit the text.
Now, why has not Roth just said this in his preface and on his website where he sells his version? Even at the expense of lucre why not just be honest about this. After all you, me, as well as everybody else clearly can see the truth of the issue.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:As for the original question, I would get Janet Maiera's interlinear and translation instead of Bauscher's (she also has a corresponding dictionary that's numbered to her interlinears). Magiera has the least bias of any translation IMO,
This I will take to heart, so as for any money I get to spend on buying Scriptures I will spend it on a translation which sticks true to the Text, awmain.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:and there is also a Messianic Edition if you want Semitic transliterations. Although she uses the Western Peshitto instead of the Eastern Peshitta, but the differences can be found here,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... ifferences</a><!-- m -->
Some more of the differences between the PeshittA and PeshittO can be found at:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Messages In This Thread
Paul Phillip Levertoff - by Stephen Silver - 04-30-2012, 02:37 AM
Re: David Bauscher Peshitta Translation - by The Texas RAT - 07-03-2012, 06:35 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)