Questions about the Aramaic English New Testament

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Dear Mr. Roth,

As a person who purchased your Aramaic English New Testament, and has received it, and upon initial inspection and reading, has found numerous spelling mistakes, and some rather significant typographical errors, I'm wondering if those who purchased your book will at some future point, be given an errata sheet that points out these errors, or better yet, be given a chance to purchase a new corrected and cleaned up version of your Aramaic English New Testament at a much lower price?

AGR:

Shlama to you-- the short answer is yes. We will be sending out errata sheets and we will be putting updated readings online. As I think I have said several times, all issues relating to Mari should go to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aent.org">http://www.aent.org</a><!-- m -->. I don't mind answering questions here, but it is extra work to forward to Baruch things that he should be dealing with directly anyway.

Also are you one person or a "committee"? Most folks here, whether using their real name or a nickname, are listed as ONE PERSON, and so I would like to know how to address you as male, female, individual or group. I after all use my real name...

Furthermore, everyone here at peshitta.org was given an early discount from the retail of $65 to $50, and first editions typically have their share of typos. We have strived to offer a transparent process by which those who have questions about Mari can share their suggestions and perhaps shape future editions. I think give its size and scope, the "numerous" typos are not that great all things considered, but, as I have also said, we are striving to get as close to perfect in the future as we can, and we take all errata seriously.

Considering the above, this only seems fair.

Another question is about your proof reader, was this person a professional proof reader,
or just someone doing a favor for you?

AGR:

You know, I don't like your tone. Shali is a professional proof reader and was a journalist in the US Army for 22 years. You can find out more about her at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.therefinersfire.org">http://www.therefinersfire.org</a><!-- m -->. I take exception with your implication, and again, the proofing continues, or there would be no need for future editions.

Considering the number of typos and grammatical errors in your book, I wonder how so many mistakes slipped past a professional proof reader.

AGR:

I think I answered you. That's what future editions are for. If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with Baruch to see what he can do for you. I don't make those decisions.

And I have some further questions about exactly which Aramaic translations that your book is actually based on.

You seem to say that you used Paul Younan's translation for the Gospels and part of the Book of Acts, and that you also used the 1905 Peshitta edition, and the Hebrew and Aramaic Peshitta from Israel.

And that you cleaned up and firmed up your whole book with the Khabouris Codex, which is freely available online.

AGR:

I said we "consulted" Paul's translation for the Gospels in the intro. I also said that I translated from the Khabouris mss and compared it to the PUBLISHED versions of the 1905 critical edition, including "The Aramaic New Covenant Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation" published in Israel.

Just because these resources are available online (Stephen Silver uses Etheridge for the English) doesn't mean a real world book doesn't have value, and yes, I DID translate, compare and cross check.

Now, if I've understood you correctly, you did not actually translate, but you merely tweaked several already existing translations, to have a translation that was more in line with your own theological beliefs.

Is this correct? Yes, or no?

AGR:

NO. I translated, compiled and cross checked. I really think you are out of line. Paul Younan's translation by the way has no copyright restrictions on it. I admit freely that I compared what I was doing with his, but if you look carefully I added tons of notes and made many, many changes to what he did, and no, I am not just talking about Sacred Name substitution. All that is needed is for you to look at the text and the footnotes that I credit to Paul as "PY" and where I extend from what he says to my own points.

I think I am very honest and open about my point of view and really wonder why other translations don't admit their theology. I have said this for years, but I have also tried to separate what are plain readings in the translation text and what are expanded theological themes in the appendices. I don't claim to be perfect, and I know not everyone will like it, but I would rather do it than not. It is better to take a shot down the field than do nothing for fear of critics like yourself. And there WILL BE future editions of Mari and it WILL be improved because practice makes perfect. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

If this is not correct, I would like to ask exactly which parts of your Aramaic English New Testament that you translated?

AGR:

Every line has been scrutinized. I did more than translate. I translated, compared and sometimes went with Khabouris, other times 1905, sometimes with other versions. I say this all clearly in the intro so I suggest you read it. I make no bones or apologies about comparing texts, amplifying them, and noting the differences.

Which books, or chapters of books, that only you had a part in translating?

AGR:

Again I answered you. I again say take the complaint up with Baruch.

Would it not have been better to let all of us know that we were purchasing at least parts of your book, that were actually already translated by someone else?

And that you in fact, merely tweaked them, to give your book more of your own theological background?

AGR:

Asked and answered.

From reading your Introduction it seems that almost all of your book was other people's translations from the Aramaic, into English.

AGR:

Asked and answered.

These seem to include Murdock, Younan, and the online Khabouris Codex.

AGR:

Murdock and Younan are ENGLISH translations and these were consulted. Lamsa was also consulted. Etheridge was consulted. I refer to their similarities, their differences and try to let the reader make up their own mind. On the Aramaic side, Khabouris and 1905 were consulted, and there are tons of footnotes showing these differences too. Why don't you take a look?

I would in fact like to ask, if what I have heard is true?

Does MARI mean: Murdock, Andrew Roth, and Younan, but the 'Y' was changed to 'I', to avoid using "Christopagan" language, that is, the name "Mary"?

AGR:

MARI means "my master", but yes, it is a double pun "Murdock-Roth-Younan" and I said that three years ago on this forum many, many times. I did that out of respect.

While I acknowledge the 1905 Peshitta as a document that you said that you translated out of, just exactly how much of your book comes from your own mind, and is your very own translation?

I would like an exact answer to this question, if you would care to answer it.

AGR:

Huh? You seem so determined in trashing me that I don't hear the question at all. I have consulted Khabouris, Old Syriac, 3 versions of Hebrew Matthew, the Greek families and 1905. I have made the best choices I could in comparing my work with those who came before me and have been honest about it.

It seems likely to me that a number of people on this particular Forum might already have a copy of Paul Younan's Interlinear Aramaic English New Testament, and were not looking to purchase another copy, which in actuality, is what we did.

The same thing might be said for Murdock's translation which is also available online.

And ditto, for the famed Khabouris Codex.

AGR:

So what? Again, does that mean books have no value? Have you read my acknowledgments giving credit to those resources and persons that helped me do this? You are talking about YOUR VIEW, that doesn't mean others wouldn't like a nicely bound volume rather than an online version or a spirally bound volume.

And plus all this, you have no idea how many people BEGGED me to do this for THEM, even though Khabouris was online, Murdock was online and Younan was online. Mari is for them.

A free translation already exists online with an Etheridge translation, along side of it.

Just how much of this was used in the production of your own Aramaic English New Testament?

Since we all paid a fair sum for your book, I feel that these questions all deserve a fair, complete, and concise answer.

Thank you.

Truth Above Oneself.

The Truth Committee

AGR:

You know what? I have told the truth. You are the one hiding behind titles. I will not respond to you further and if you continue in your insults I will lock the thread. If you have a real question and can ask it respectfully though, I will answer it as I have done here.