Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aramaic English New Testament 4th Ed.
#1
Does anyone have any input of the accuracy or the "Aramaic English New Testament 4th Ed." by Andrew Gabriel Roth?
Reply
#2
It seems like a pretty accurate translation. It is very literal and has the actual Peshitta text available. There is some theological bias in the translation (not much) but usually his "interpretations" are enclosed in parenthesis instead of being inserted into the translation. His commentary is extremely apologetic towards Jews and Gentiles obeying the Mosaic Torah. He also isn't Trinitarian, which isn't a problem to me (being a Oneness Pentecostal), but most people would not like that part of his commentary! I'm very excited for his Old Testament translation! The AENT uses the Paul Younan and James Murdock translations as the base text, so it reads quite similar with them. The Aramaic "MarYah" is translated as "Master YHWH". "Alaha" is translated as "Elohim".
Reply
#3
I don't have the 4th edition, just the 1st, but as I have seen it, the translation is the best representation, (so far), in English, of the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta text as it stands in the 22 books of the Eastern Text, being mostly an edited version of Paul Younan's interlinear renderings of Matt, Mark, Luke, and John and up to Acts chapter 15, then James Murdoch's 1840s translation for the rest of the books, including the W5, with only Galatians being Mr. Roth's personal translation. His Aramaic text to the right, is in Hebrew characters, and is not of any particular Aramaic Manuscript that can be studied, but rather an edited version, to closer conform to his English version. It's seems to be a hybid of the Khabouris Codex and the 1905 USB, as far as I can tell, even in the 22 books of the Eastern Text.

And minus the sectarian bias of Mr. Roth's notes, the notes are fantastic.

But for the other notes, Mr. Roth is confusing to me, for his notes call the teaching of the Trinity (polytheism), thus those who worship the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are worshiping three gods in his mind... and those Christians who do so, in his mind, which his particular sect terms "Cristo-Pagans", are not part of the Body of Christ. He does not seem to like to be called a Christian, and it is clear from his notes on the subject, that he does not at all understand the teaching of the Trinity, as is taught by Christ, and His Apostles and the early Church, or, he has heard a version of it taught from some that were in error in their interpretation of it. He seems to believe that all Gentiles must come under the Law of Moses (most of it anyways) to walk right before God, but this matter was settled once and for all by God, through His Apostles in 50 A.D. at the Council of Jerusalem.

These are my observations, and I do not mean to condemn Mr. Roth's soul, but just an honest assesment of what I have come to understand about some of his teachings and his New Testament English version. I believe that God will straighten things out in his mind in due time.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#4
He does come across as rather confrontational in his notes...that is one thing I dislike about his translation. His interpretations, which are thankfully in the notes only most of the time, read too much into the Scriptures. Nobody can keep the Law perfectly except for one: Jesus Christ. Roth seems to think that all Christians believe there to be no Torah, therefore an excuse to sin, but we are under a Torah. This Torah is not the Mosaic Torah, but the Torah of Christ.
Reply
#5
What is sin but the violation of the Moshayich Torah? The penalty of sin is separation fromYHWH! Grace has saved us from that destany, but should we sin more that grace will abound even more? HEAVEN FORBID!!! We should walk just as He (our Savoir) walked, that being keeping the Torah not by the letter but rather by the Spirit thereof. Would the Spirit of Torah lay claim that the written instructions which are to lead mankind closer to YHWH are useless? Be truthful and answer just which spirit would be against such righteous instructions? Yes it would have been better if Roth would have put his theological notes in a separate binding and called it Roth's Commentary, but as for laying claim that he is off about the fact that we should be keeping Torah, as that which was righteous and good and pure is no longer worth it's salt is totally adversarial to the Torah. And I do not beleive that there is a third spiritual being sitting next to YHWH and Yehoshuah The Anointed One in Heaven. I believe that the Spirit is nothing more than Power emanating from YHWH the Father unto all of His creation as well as unto His only begotten Son. Oh and I do not care to be called a Christian either for reasons I will not go into here. Y'all call yourself one if it pleases you, but as for me and my house - NOT.

Anyway this was about the accuracy of the AENT, so I will say if you think that Paul Younan's plain English translation is accurate then the AENT should be as well from Mattith-YaHu to Acts chapter 15. Paul Younan's English only Texts can be found at the bottom of the following page: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/peshitta_interlinear.htm">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicN ... linear.htm</a><!-- m -->

And as for the rest of the other books (except that of Galations) if you think that James Murdock's translations is accurate then you should like the AENT too. Personally I like the fact that Brother Roth used Elohim rather than G-D. And as for him translating Mar-Yah as Master YHWH, rather than "The LORD" or "Jehovah", is 100% more so accurate by leaving The Divine Name within Scripture where it belongs as opposed to replacing it with what ever one fancies. And being this thread is about accuracy of the AENT rather than Theologies I will not bother to mention just which Spirit Brother Roth must have followed when deciding to translate the Divine Name as he did - Hallelu-Yah awmane.

All in all I must say that Roth's AENT is a version between Paul Younan's English translation and James Murdock's translation, and not an actual translation of its own (despite Andrew's assertions). A translation is when one translates a work from one language unto another language, and a version is when one revises a work within the same language. Now even though Roth's AENT is a version rather than a translation it is more accurate than the translations from which he used as a base text being he restored the Divine Name unto its rightful place throughout. Yet I do not know if he revised the translations else where toward the good or bad. As far as I can tell he only revised about 5% of the translations. Keep in mind that most of that is where he restored the Divine Name and switched Elohim in place of G-D, not to mention better transliterations of other names. Also he revised the book of Galatians more than any other Books, supposedly to fit what he believes would be a more accurate reading. This is where opinions will vary as to whether he did justice or injustice to the AENT.

Now strictly just my opinion of the AENT Version, I think it is, most more than likely, the best there is at the moment pertaining to an English rendition of an Aramaic RC. As to whether it represents the Eastern PeshittA as claimed, or perhaps the Western PeshittO instead, this would be something to look into if one wants a English rendition of the Eastern PeshittA as opposed to the Western PeshittO. I do not know why but most/all translations/versions which lay claim to being based from the Eastern PeshittA are really from the Western PeshittO, which is known to be a translation from Greek text (except for 2 that I know of, but neither is complete at this time). Any translation with the following variant readings are not of the Eastern PeshittA! Including the 5 Western Books mention below! So if it walks like one [has certain verses or not] and talks like one [reads one way or the other] then it must be one, yeah/naw? Oh and keep in mind that Murdock translated the Western PeshittO.

Verses that are not in the Eastern PeshittA.
Also the Books called the Western five.

1. Mattith-YaHu 27:35 (b) ? (*Only the second half is omitted)
(KJV) - "And they crucified Him, and parted His garments, casting lots: [that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by the prophet,*? They parted My garments among them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots.
?]"
(Peshitta) - "And when they had crucified Him, they divided His clothes by casting lots."
2. Loukanus 22:17-18 (Not in Peshitta)
(KJV) ? ["And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, ? Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves:
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of Mar-Yah shall come.? "]
3. Yo-Khawnawn 7:53 (Not in Peshitta)
(KJV) ? ["And every man went unto his own house."]
4. Yo-Khawnawn 8: 1 - 11 (Not in Peshitta)
(KJV) ? [1) Yehoshuah went unto the mount of Olives.
2) And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came unto Him;
and He sat down, and taught them.
3) And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery;
and when they had set her in the midst,
4) They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5) Now Moshay in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what say thou?
6) This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him.
But
Yehoshuah stooped down, and with [His] finger wrote on the ground, [as though He heard them not].
7) So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them,
? He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.?
8 ) And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9) And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one,
beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and
Yehoshuah was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10) When
Yehoshuah had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, ? Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee??
11) She said, ? No man, Mater.? And
Yehoshuah said unto her,
? Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more
.?]
5. Acts 8:37 (Not in Peshitta)
(KJV) ? [And Philip said, ? If thou believes with all thine heart, thou may.? And he answered and said,
? I believe that
Yehoshuah The Anointed One is the Son of Ail.?]
6. Acts 15:34 (Not in Peshitta)
(KJV) - [Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.]
7. Acts 28:29 (Not in Peshitta)
(KJV) ? [And when he had said these words, the Yehudeem departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.]
8. 1 Yo-Khawnawn 5:7-8
(KJV) - For there are three that bear witness [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit:
and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth
], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.
9. THE WESTERN FIVE: 2 Kefa, 2 Yo-Khawnawn, 3 Yo-Khawnawn, Yehudah, and Revelation.
(These Books did not make it into the PeshittA because they were either written in Greek (and saw as heathen
text) or where written after the split of the Congregation, due to persecution, whereby they 1) did not get
circulated to the East, or 2) were seen not to be Originals by the Eastern Assemblies. Either way this does not
mean that they are not part of the Gospel.)

TWO major places where the text will differ between the Eastern and the Western PeshittA/O readings,
are in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9. In Acts, the Eastern reading says "Congregation/Assembly of The
Anointed One" while the Western reading says "Congregation/Assembly of Alaha". Hebrews 2:9 in the Eastern text has "apart from Alaha". But the Western text has "by the grace of Alaha".
Reply
#6
Thirdwoe Wrote:His Aramaic text to the right, is in Hebrew characters, and is not of any particular Aramaic Manuscript that can be studied, but rather an edited version, to closer conform to his English version. It's seems to be a hybid of the Khabouris Codex and the 1905 USB, as far as I can tell, even in the 22 books of the Eastern Text.

It is a shame when someone [not saying who] claims to have translated a particular ancient text when in reality they actually translated backwards by making-up an ancient text to conform to their so called translation. Did they think that no one would realize? Do they think that no one would expose what they are up to? Reminds me of Scrivener making a Greek text to help justify the KI/KJ Version. So if ThirdWoe is right (and I have no doubt) it would seem that Scrivener's Greek text is as phony as the Aramaic text accompanying the AENT. What a crying shame. The Aramaic PeshittA has had no variant readings for close to 2000 years and then one Andrew Gabriel Roth laid hands upon it whereby rendering the first so-called Aramaic Eastern PeshittA Text with variant readings <!-- s:whaasup: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whaasup.gif" alt=":whaasup:" title="Whaasup" /><!-- s:whaasup: --> . Well now we know why the Eastern Church feels like they need to set the record STRAIGHTTTT with a true English translation of the Aramaic Eastern PeshittA.

In the mean time if one does not know Aramaic, studying the supposed English translations thereof is like wading through all the English translations from the Greek texts and not understanding Greek. One will not know when and where the translators take liberty to stray from the text they claim to be translating from. Really it's bad enough when translators claim to be translating from one (Eastern) text when consistently rendering from another (Western) text? But to have the gall to put forth a perverted text claiming that it is the STRAIGHT Scripture when it isn't - <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> OY VEY!!! As if bending and twisting the PeshittA in the Greek language was not bad enough <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: --> <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

I pray for the Day that the Eastern PeshittA is as STRAIGHT in the English language as it has been in the Aramaic language over the past 2,000 years. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#7
Tex,

Please just study the Aramaic text at Dukhrana.com, as I do. I just compare what I find in the Aramaic Text there, and you don't even need to know much about the Aramaic language to study The Text with all it's interactive language study helps. Have you tried it? It's absolutly awesome. When I began to compare the Eastern Peshitta Text, against the Peshitto text and the various English versions that exist, I realised that there is no substitue really, than The Real Thing.

And I sent you a response to your privet message box, concerning some things in your 1st post above in this thread, which I hope with bless you.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#8
Thirdwoe Wrote:He does not seem to like to be called a Christian,
Nope, but, funny story... when he was in Jerusalem he got lost and accidentally ended up on the Temple mount. As soon as he realized where he was there was this Muslim guard who pointed at him and said "you, muslim??" In his mind he was thinking "what do I say? Should I tell him I'm Netzari? Maybe he'll get that confused and think I'm saying Notzri, or..." in the midst of his thoughts, the armed guard once again aggressively says "you, muslim??" and then Roth, surprising himself, yells out "CHRISTIAN!" A light bulb moment perhaps which proves that when it comes down to it, we really are one body.

Thirdwoe Wrote:He seems to believe that all Gentiles must come under the Law of Moses (most of it anyways) to walk right before God
I'm sorry, but this statement is incorrect and misleading. To be under the Law means to be under it's condemnation because the Law reveals our sin and the penalty for sin is death. But as we clearly know, there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. So nobody who follows Messiah is "under the Law", rather, we are free from it's ability to condemn us to death on judgment day. But we are not free from our mandate of living holy, righteous lifestyles, and this is what Roth teaches. He simply believes that a holy, righteous lifestyle would be following the Torah as given to Moses. He also believes that to follow the Torah of Moses correctly one has to do it "in Messiah" according to the Holy Spirit and the way in which Messiah interpreted and taught it.

Just a clarification for what is taught in Roth's notes. He makes it very clear that his teaching of Torah Observance is not coming "under the Law". That is a very gross misunderstanding of the text.

One thing Roth also says about his commentary is that it is not for mainstream Christians but for those who have already been convinced of Torah Observance and have joined the Hebraic Roots movement. I learned this the hard way by giving an AENT to a headstrong Baptist girl I was courting a few years ago, lol!

I should also mentioned that I concur with the comments from the first few posters in regards to the translation accuracy. If you'd like a detailed review from my end, click here.
Reply
#9
Luc,

I've responded to this in your personal message box.

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#10
The Texas RAT Wrote:Now strictly just my opinion of the AENT Version, I think it is, most more than likely, the best there is at the moment pertaining to an English rendition of an Aramaic RC. As to whether it represents the Eastern PeshittA as claimed, or perhaps the Western PeshittO instead, this would be something to look into if one wants a English rendition of the Eastern PeshittA as opposed to the Western PeshittO.
Do you actually own a copy of the AENT now so you can make a valid opinion?

For Gary, the AENT does in fact line up with the Eastern Peshitta as opposed to the Western Peshitto (which is not a translation of the Greek as someone mentioned in this thread, but was merely influenced by it [with the exception of the "Western 5" - 2 Peter, 2+3 John, Jude and Revelation, which were not recieved into the eastern canon simply because they were not obtained directly from the Apostles or one of their direct associates themselves; a requirement for a book to be canonized in the east]).

Hope this helps.
Reply
#11
Matthew 13:27- how does it read?
Reply
#12
rungold315 Wrote:Matthew 13:27- how does it read?
"And the servants approached the House of Master YHWH and said to him, 'Behold, you did sow good seed in your field. From where are the tares in it?'" (Matthew 13:27 AENT 1st Ed.)
Reply
#13
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
The Texas RAT Wrote:Now strictly just my opinion of the AENT Version, I think it is, most more than likely, the best there is at the moment pertaining to an English rendition of an Aramaic RC.
Do you actually own a copy of the AENT now so you can make a valid opinion?
I have all the sample pages and the full Book of Galatians -
Sample Pages:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aent.org/samples.htm">http://www.aent.org/samples.htm</a><!-- m -->

Full translation to the Book of Galatians:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/Aramaic_Galatians.pdf">http://aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/Ara ... atians.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#14
:

It has all the Eastern readings for the 22 books of the Eastern Peshitta, while David Bauscher's version has all the Western Peshitto readings for the 22 books. Mageria has mostly western readings, with a few Eastern readings. I've checked.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#15
Texas RAT, you state that the Holy Spirit is merely the power of God. The Spirit is personal, being God in His very essence. The Spirit is spoken of as teaching us all truth, appointing church leaders over the sheep of Christ. The Spirit is Himself God. I don't believe in the Trinity and don't intend to get into a theological debate: this is all I'm saying. The Holy Ghost is God the Father in His very essence, coming to mankind in a form in which we can handle Him. The Holy Ghost is personally equivalent to both the Father and His Son (Matthew 10:20 and Galatians 4:6). The Father is YHWH Himself, in relation to the Man He became and fathered in the incarnation: Jesus Christ.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)