Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Questions about the Aramaic English New Testament
#1
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?

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?

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

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 Khaboris Codex, which is freely available online.

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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"?

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.

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 Khaboris Codex.

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
#2
Quote: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...

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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?

Quote: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?

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#3
Hmmm, after reading this, I must admit typos are a bit annoying, and I did know they existed prior to ordering MARI because one of the sample passages had one (cant quite remember where) but they're not that impactive. Surely you're not going to go through the process of publishing newly updated MARI in print as well are you, Andrew? Because unless there is doctrinal/translation errors in MARI (which Im sure they're probably arent), I can live with typos for now. I personally cant wait for my order to come sometime this week.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear Elohim, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc.12:13
#4
Shlama Akhi Daniel,

Some typos are inevitable in a first edition of this size. I am only aware of a few of them, but for others, that is what the website is for, <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aent.org">www.aent.org</a><!-- w -->. Baruch and I will try to deal with anything that we need to do in order to make the translation clearer, better, more accessible, etc. To the extent that a reading here or there may not be as clear--which is one of the reasons for the extensive footnotes and supplemental materials--that could in theory cause a misperception in doctrine. Although, it is fair to point out even the best readings can also be erroneously interpreted. Nestle Aland is on their 26th or later edition I believe for this reason. Even KJV has been updated a few times. Lamsa also had an updated version of his NT come out many years later with his original notes restored.

Typos will get fixed, but the larger work is this other process. I am not sure though I understand your question fully though because I have always said there will be future editions and updates between editions. I am not, nor is Baruch, so arrogant as to think everything perfect the first time out. Nor do we think that whatever issues there may be that they are not important. In fact, this may be the first fully interactive translation that I am aware of. This is the power of the internet where the world's eyes can help. Of course, there is a dark side as well to this, as with many things in life.

I view the Aramaic Peshitta as a purely fixed text, but the English can be expressed in a variety of ways, some subjective others not, and how it comes across may be a matter of personal taste. You can't please everybody, so ultimately it is my job to make the best work I can and yes that goes through my own judgment and knowledge, but again, not from a place where I can't be corrected now and then. Where different meanings are possible I really try to show them.

But I can tell you this: No one has opened the process up as we have. If I wanted to I could just say that when all typos were taken care of the English is perfect, don't ask me anything. In the past, once the English of a translation was fixed that was it until the next comittee or what have you did another go at it. I don't want to go 14 years as JPS did between its 1985 and 1999 Tanakh editions. People are going to read Mari and bring things to my attention regardless, so I am not so foolish as to ignore that as a resource and use what we can to get out a later edition.

Hope this helps!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#5
Gee, I wonder if the Truth Committee revealed its membership....would we recognize any names from the past?

Andrew, see Akhi a big advantage to having a free translation is nobody can ***** about it later. You get what you "paid" for, and you'll LIKE it! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

In all seriousness, I would have deleted the original post. Very disrespectful in my opinion.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#6
I agree with Paul.

-Doug "Whitey" Jackson
#7
Shlama AKhi Paul and Akhi Doug,

Truth be told, I almost did delete it. But I also thought that while this person was out of line in his insulting manner, some questions minus the insults could be dealt with. I probably did over explain though. And now I am at a point where I am just thinking all feedback, good and bad, should just go to <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aent.org">www.aent.org</a><!-- w -->. If you guys see typos, why not just email Baruch and tell him where they are so we can fix them? Why just trash my proofreader or me and hide behind "numerous" and other such language? If it's worth raising in the first place, it's worth giving us a chance to agree or disagree, correct or leave in place.

I'll tell you something else. I did originally send a rough draft of Mari to Baruch to post for free (he runs some of my websites), but when word of that got out I literally received HUNDREDS of requests from all over the world begging me to publish. Baruch then told me he was getting support and advice from all quarters of Christians, Jews and Nazarenes. People who wanted to pay for pre pub copies that were years from completion--well I wouldn't do that because it wasn't ethical, and i didn't want the path of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-named. Others who wanted to donate equipment, printing expertise, etc.

Within a month of that rough draft going to Baruch, the hundreds of requests had turned into THOUSANDS. And for three years now hardly a day has gone by without at least 10 people emailing me privately or posting here, forwarding from other forums, BEGGING for Mari. Well, what could I do? And publishing a real world book costs real money...

So here we are, but I am probably over explainign again!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#8
Bottom line Akh is that you don't need to explain yourself to anyone. I don't care if they purchased your book, or are just arm-chair critiquing. This isn't like someone purchasing a designer line of clothing from you, that if it should contain a blemish they would have the right to complain. The fact of the matter is that your work is beyond the scope of a simple purchase of a durable item. It is literally a contribution to civilization, and an offering to God.

It is suitable for someone to complain about the binding of a book, as they have in the past with other translations. Those are the types of things they are paying for.

No one is "paying" for your translation, it is far above any price tag. Which is why I took offense to the tone or spirit of the original "questioner."

You know, when you read a typical copy of a Peshitta, the scribe almost always included a page or two at the end where he begged for the forgiveness of the reader, on account of the many mistakes that he surely made. He asked for their prayer, admitted his shortcoming as a human being and bestowed blessings upon those who read.

The "Truth Committee" would do well to contemplate those words.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#9
Shlama Akhi Khabiba Paul,

I am more grateful for these kind words of yours that I can possibly say. I weep with joy as you understand the highs and the lows of this process better than anyone else.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#10
The Truth Committee Wrote: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.

Ok..so you really purchased Younans copy?

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

And you purchased Murdocks copy too?

The Truth Committee Wrote:And ditto, for the famed Khaboris Codex.

And the Khabouris copy too.


Can you make up your mind.
#11
No, Andrew used PAUL YOUNAN'S translation.

Paul's Gospel's and part of Acts.

He used Murdock's translation, and "tweaked it".

The same thing for Paul Younan's translation.

Do YOU want a second copy of Paul Younan's translation?

I DON'T, and this IS NOT WHAT I PAID FOR!

AND Andrew used the Khabouris Codex to straighten it all out...........he finally "tweaked it" with the Khabouris Codex.

NONE of this is "a transliteration" or "a translation"

NONE OF IT.

It's someone "tweaking" what ALREADY EXISTS.

And this BS of a first translation not being without flaws.

Even James Trimm only had three or four mistakes in his HRV (in the whole NT).

I've had first editions of EVERY Aramaic to English New Testament EXCEPT 'The Way International's', and George Lamsa's (but I have one of those on the way, to REPLACE Mari), that means EIGHT other first editions, and NONE OF THEM are full of typos and spelling mistakes, and grammatical errors like Mari IS.

And since it's VERBOTEN (FORBIDDEN) to discuss THEOLOGY on this Forum, so, what's with the THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS ENTOMBMENT OF YESHUA thread.......I see, it just DEPENDS ON WHO POSTS IT.

You HYPOCRITES and sons of vipers, just like your predecessors, THE PHARISEES!.

Mari-- 'The Aramaic English New Testament' is a rip off, and our family was ripped of for $56.00, which to US, is A LOT of MONEY!

Yeah, Trimm was bad, but this pusedo-translation, is just as BAD!

I waited 7 YEARS, for this "translation" that's NOT a translation.

Adon Yeshua rebuke you all!
#12
I think I know who this is! <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Moderators - what sayest thou? Committee vote here:

Should this post be deleted? Should the "Committee" be banned for attacking individuals and groups?

Quote:In an effort to make this forum as useful and as constructive as possible, any threatening, abusive, libelous, or defamatory information of any kind posted here will be removed. Personal insults or insults toward any community will not be tolerated and the entire post will be summarily removed, along with its replies.

I leave it to your discretion.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#13
I do agree with one thing from the "Committee", however. The thread concerning the 3-day resurrection doesn't belong here. Unless of course the purpose is somehow related to the text and the interpretation based on the Aramaic.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#14
Hmmm. Some interesting details I just found out, Akhay.

The IP address of this "Committee" is traced back to (drum roll please).......

Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Now, who do we know that fits this criteria......

(a) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
(b) has a bad habit of posting using one liners instead of properly grouping sentences in a logical paragraph
© swore he would never return to this forum, 15 times
(d) often over-utilizes the BOLD text functionality, and finally...
(e) is continually combative with everyone on this forum

First correct guess wins!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#15
shlom lokh oH Paul,

Paul Younan Wrote:I do agree with one thing from the "Committee", however. The thread concerning the 3-day resurrection doesn't belong here. Unless of course the purpose is somehow related to the text and the interpretation based on the Aramaic.

If you read all the posts that I've contributed to this thread, then you'll see that all my responses were from the Peshitta text, and that most of them dealt with Aramaic linguistics.
It also dealt with the differences between the Greek text and Aramaic text, and which one is offering a higher precision.

But giving that doubts have been raised as to its relevance in relation to Peshitta Primacy, then if you all agree I will withdraw from further discussions on this topic.

P.S. As for the committee, I would recommend taking it up with Andrew and his publisher privately.

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)