Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AENT Errors
#46
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Also, don't you think it'd be a good idea for Roth to make his translation 100% Eastern Peshitta by changing the reading in Matthew 21:4? It'd be the first purely Peshitta translation.
It will take more than just adding the word "all" to Mattith-YaHu 21:4 to make Roth's version 100% Eastern PeshittA. And there's the cases as Luc pointed out that Roth is taking liberty to change the story to fit his way of thinking (a couple of examples: Acts 2:36 and Galatians 1:4 in Roth's 4th Edition). Roth will have to stop doing this kind of stuff if he wants his future editions to be taken seriously.

Also as Thirdwoe points out, Roth's so-called Aramaic text is not even a true rendering word for word from his 1st edition onward, something that has not happened since the Western rendition in the 4th century. It seems as if Roth is not only changing the English to say what he will but has also changed the Aramaic words to fit his English (oy) [something that seems to change more every edition]. This type of antics will not help the Aramaic Renewed Testament Supremacy or the GOOD NEWS either. Hopefully Roth will come to his senses and stop messing with the GOOD NEWS (and he will always have just a version, not a translation). But there is real good news in that there is an English translation being done that is truly 100% Eastern PeshittA. They have done all but the four Gospels at this point and may take another year or so to finish. Then English speaking people will have, for once, a Translation that is closest to the original texts than ever before, awmain.

Also, I would encourage you to read through the various PDFs posted @ <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/collections/3769399/d-Evidence-of-an-original-Aramaic-Re-Newed-Covenant">http://www.scribd.com/collections/37693 ... d-Covenant</a><!-- m --> for a solid case made for an Aramaic supremacy stance. The evidence presented <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: --> every reasoning of a Greek stance out of the water [there are 2 pages so be sure to browse through both].
Reply
#47
The Texas RAT Wrote:It seems as if Roth is not only changing the English to say what he will but has also changed the Aramaic words to fit his English (oy) [something that seems to change more every edition].
Wait, what? Could you give me an example?

And as for the Hebreshitta and such, we have to remember that this is primarily made to be a Netzari Bible, not merely a Peshitta translation, so this is why it is made in a unique image. I enjoy the Estrangela font of the first and second editions, but I can read the Hebrew font 1000x easier. I think the originals were in that font (i.e. references to "Hebrew letters" by the church founders and a few other things) but that it switched once they fled Jerusalem and migrated to areas where estrangela was used.
Reply
#48
:

Yea, Dylan, I'll show the readings, when I get the books next week sometime. It truly is The Hebreshitta...is it not?

As for the spelling Eshu, there are a few ways you can spell it and reflect the actual Aramaic letters in the Peshitta... A "Y" "I" or an "E" can be used for the 1st letter, Yhod...this is how we got the Greek "Iesous" and the Latin translation of the Greek "Iesu"...even the KJV only readers have to admit that the 1st KJV of 1611 has our Masters Name as "Iesus", before the English language changed the ?I? to ?J?, which made it Jesus...

"Iesus answered, and said vnto him, Uerily, verily I say vnto thee, except a man be borne againe, he cannot see the kingdome of God." John 3:3 <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_John-3-3/">http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_John-3-3/</a><!-- m -->

So, you see the Aramaic "Yhod", which has an eeeee sound, is seen in the Greek and Latin "Ie" and even the modern English "Je" is the Yhod, but has lost the original sound of the Aramaic, which Geeee, rather than Eeeeee.

So, to spell it, as it sounds, it's best to go with E, rather than Y or even Ye...because you make it sound like ?yeashu?, rather than Eshu or Esho...as it is spelled (both ways) in The Church of the East liturgy books.

Now...since the last letter in the Master's Holy Name in Aramaic, is silent letter, or has the sound of a guttural stop...as talked about before...I think it best to leave it off the spelling, because if you put a letter "a" at the end "Eshua" or "Eshoa"...then you make it sound other than it sounded originally. Which would be Eshu, or Esho...I'm still trying to figure which is the oldest form there with "shu" Shoe, or "Sho" Show....maybe someone can tell us?

That is why I used that form... Eshu... I have put an ' and the end, like Eshu', but it?s kind of silly to do so, since it is silent and it's not even a letter.

So...Eshu or Esho is the closest I think we can get in English to how it originally sounded in Aramaic. I use "Eshu" in my prayers, but He has answered them previously when I used Jesus, and then Yeshua or Yahshua...

Shlama or Shalom <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Chuck

.
Reply
#49
:

Quote:I think the originals were in that font (i.e. references to "Hebrew letters" by the church founders and a few other things) but that it switched once they fled Jerusalem and migrated to areas where estrangela was used.

Could be so...among the Jews in Israel and Judah, but, the letters would look more like what is seen in the Samaritan copies we see today, or that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, than modern Hebrew fonts...

What do you think is meant by "Edessian letters" though, where the copy of 78 A.D. which was in Baghdad, and was said to be in that script? Was this a transliteration of the original Hebrew character Aramaic NT, if not a Translation of it?

Anyone?

..
Reply
#50
Thirdwoe Wrote::
Could be so...among the Jews in Israel and Judah, but, the letters would look more like what is seen in the Samaritan copies we see today, or that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, than modern Hebrew fonts...
Yeah, that's definitely true. Like Steve's reconstruction of the Lord's prayer, I love that handwritten look.

Thirdwoe Wrote::
What do you think is meant by "Edessian letters" though, where the copy of 78 A.D. which was in Baghdad, and was said to be in that script? Was this a transliteration of the original Hebrew character Aramaic NT, if not a Translation of it?
Probably a transliteration, but I'd have to look more into it myself.
Reply
#51
I'd like it is Roth re-released an edition with Estrangelo and still kept another edition with the Hebrew script out. I'm wish Bauscher would have stuck with Estrangelo in his Interlinear, but at least we still have Magiera and Younan to thank for keeping it in their Interlinears!
Reply
#52
:

Ok...just found this tonight. In 1 John 2:13-14 in Roth's version, 1st edition, (not sure if it's fixed in the later editions) he has vs.13 end too short in the English text, which is also true in Murdoch's translation. The Aramaic text Roth has to the right, has these further words given in the text at the end of vs.13 "I write to the youth, because you?re known to The Father." (Literal)

Roth has it in the next vs. at the beginning of it though, but...both the Khabouris and the UBS text has the ending the same for vs.13 which has the longer ending...Etheridge has it in his translation and Lamsa has it in his version... and both Magiera and Bauscher, who used the UBS edition to translate have the vs. in their English translation of vs.13. So does Herb Jahn's literal translation. I haven't checked all the others, but it seems to be that this was a mistake by Murdoch, which got perpetuated in Roth's modification of Murdoch's translation.

Shlama,
Chuck

.
Reply
#53
I could pull a KJV only quote and say he was changing the Word of God! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
Reply
#54
:

Well, the only other explinations, if not that....would be that Murdoch's source text/texts, reads that way...(we would have to check them to see, and I don't know where they are.) or...it's just a mistake on Murdoch's part. I don't see any reason to change it on purpose, there would be no bias I can think of to motivate it.
Reply
#55
Yeah, that's purely a verse numbering mistake, and it is the same in the 4th edition. It makes little difference other than comparing to the verse numbering in the Aramaic text, but it should be noted either way. I know there's at least one other place where this occurs as well, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. I should make note next time I find it.
Reply
#56
:

Hey Luc, can you check the 4th edtion to see if Acts 8:37 and Acts 15:34 has been taken out of the Aramaic text page. The 1st edition has the verses present, while Andrew has a note in the English text line, saying that these verses are non-existant in the Peshitta. If they are non-existant, then they should not be in the Aramaic page there...they are in the Peshitto...which is what the Aramaic text is in the AENT version, but edited in certain places (not all) to be inline with the Eastern Peshitta text.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#57
Isn't it the UBS Critical text? Changed to update (most) major varients between east and west? Anyway, yes, I have those marked down and will check them when I get home. Thanks!
Reply
#58
Shlama Chuck,

Both verses are within the Aramaic text of the 4th Edition. I will add them to the list (I doubt it will be changed in the 5th edition; although I should get mine by the end of the week).
Reply
#59
Please accept this one in good faith...

The Story from Acts 8 is a very vicious satire written around one "Anicetus", found in Tacitus, _Histories_, Book 3, 47 - 48.
We may begin by possibly identifying "Queen Candace" with Bernice, once married to Polemon, who spent some time with Titus.
That's not the important part.

Vespasian is on his way to Alexandria to gain control of the grain supply, should he have to starve Rome out.
Mucianus, a main character in Acts, has cleared the Pontus of Roman military might, leaving a vacuum. He is on his way to attack Rome.
Anicetus raises troops in this now clear and free Pontus in the name of Vitellius and then attacks Trapezus.
Vespasian sends Virdius Geminus and some troops to take care of bidness.

[29] And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."

The chariot is an instrument of war.

Anicetus and his group build boats called Camarae which have no iron fasteners. Compare with Acts when the small boat is lifted onto the deck, secured by ropes. Also see that the last 2 chapters of Acts appear to describe what it was like to be in one of these Camarae boats (and the refugees at the mouth of the...Cohibus).

Here is the important part:

[30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
[31] And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
[32] Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this:
"As a sheep led to the slaughter
or a lamb before its shearer is dumb,
so he opens not his mouth.
[33] In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken up from the earth."
[34] And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?"

Tacitus, _Histories_, Book 3:

"Hastily fitting out a fleet of Liburnian ships he pursued Anicetus, and overtook him at the mouth of the river Cohibus, where he was protected by the king of the Sedochezi, whose alliance he had secured by a sum of money and other presents. This prince at first endeavoured to protect the suppliant by a threat of hostilities; when, however, the choice was presented to him between war and the profit to be derived from treachery, he consented, with the characteristic perfidy of barbarians, to the destruction of Anicetus, and delivered up the refugees.

"About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?" Ummm...this is about Anicetus himself, who is being double-crossed.

[36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?"
[37]...
[38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
[39] And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. himself:

"...and the eunuch saw him no more...". Of course he saw him no more. He's dead.

On this view, verse 37 would have to be a later addition.

CW
Reply
#60
2 quick notes:
I appreciate the translation of "Treasurer" instead of "Eunuch". I did a quick rip from the online RSV (Which doesn't use Acts 8: 37, BTW). As I get more proficient with the tools on this site, I'll use the Interlinear.

More important:
It is stated that Philip "Baptizes" the Treasurer to Queen Candace.
Be aware that the word "Baptize" may bring an entirely different meaning than one might think would adhere.
Consider:
1 Corinthians 1: 14 - 17:

[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

Now why would it matter that Paul is worried about the number of people he has Baptized and who they were?

[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Oh, yeah, I forgot! See...ummm...it's like this...

Moses is locked out of the Promised Land for less. No, there is something else here and it is the word "Baptize". Notice the almost conversational tone of 14 - 16. He Baptized only "Priscus" and "Caius"... I mean "Crispus" and "Gaius".

"I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas."
Who is in the "Household of Stephanas"? Let's see..."Stephanas" is close to...to...
Anyway, beware of being "Baptized" here. It may mean something else entirely.

CW
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)