Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Reviewing Andrew's Translation
I really like the translation. It's quite good, and the footnotes are very helpful. I'm going to have to learn Estrangela, but I'm looking forward to having the two there to compare.
The pedigree is quite good, too. In Aramaic using both 1905 and Khabouris was great. The English pedigree is also very good. Younan and Murdock. In my opinion those were, by far, the best translations available as far as readability until now. I also appreciate Bauscher, and will continue to use it, but it's not readable.
What I do find ironic is that if I laud Murdock, I get an earful. If Mr. Roth gives him credit, all I hear is "Yea and amen."
The extra features are a mixed blessing. So far I've only had a chance to look at a few of them. The article on Alma was excellent. The best of its kind that I have seen. Because I have a number of antimissionary friends, this is a big topic for me, so I've studied it a good deal. Mr. Roth was still able to bring out points that I was not familiar with, and wrap it up better than any argument I'd seen before. Brilliant work.
On the other hand, I read the article on Josephus and it was unsatisfactory to say the least. I felt that the conclusion was strained, based on partial information, and strained conjectures.

All in all, this gets a double thumbs-up from me. Very good stuff. One of a kind. The scholarly effort that went into the translation cannot be measured and I think it shows.

Shalom uvrachot,

Messages In This Thread
Reviewing Andrew's Translation - by Dawid - 12-11-2008, 11:29 PM
Re: Reviewing Andrew's Translation - by Dawid - 12-19-2008, 01:34 PM
Re: Reviewing Andrew's Translation - by Christina - 05-06-2009, 08:25 PM
Re: Reviewing Andrew's Translation - by ograabe - 05-07-2009, 04:02 AM
Re: Reviewing Andrew's Translation - by Christina - 05-07-2009, 08:54 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)