Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AENT 3rd Ed.
Hello, everyone.

I was recently looking at the AENT, and have decided I would like to purchase one. However, since I am trying to improve my knowledge and vocabulary of Syriac, I would prefer the 3rd Ed., as that is the last one before Roth changed the "font."

So my question is, does anyone know where I can buy one? All he currently sells is the 5th Ed. and the 4th Ed Large Print.

Shalom b'Mashiach
shalom --- are you still looking for an AENT 3rd edition
glscottnz Wrote:shalom --- are you still looking for an AENT 3rd edition

Yes, if I can find one.
[Malachi3_6]"I am trying to improve my knowledge and vocabulary of Syriac"

I suggest reading Paul's interlinear. I sounded out the words for it, and learned some vocabulary in the process.

If you want more of the font seen in Paul's interlinear, I also suggest checking out the Khabouris Codex.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

For Mt - Acts 1-15, the AENT improved-- but not nearly enough-- the work of someone who rearranged the words in Paul's interlinear. I improved the rearranging for all the way through Acts 16-- see
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
I also made things harder to read by adding in some transliterations. I invite comments.

I have the AENT 5th edition. The 3rd edition undoubtedly has more syntax and grammar problems in the translated text for Mt - Acts 1-15 than does the 5th edition.
The AENT isn't an original translation. It is merely Paul's work modified poorly by someone and then that was improved somewhat by Roth, plus Roth's modification of Murdock's work for Acts 16 on. Some Murdock text is at
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Yes, I know Roth's process. The problem with the interlinear is that it ends in the middle of Acts.
The 3rd edition is actually the first one to have the "Hebrew letters" in it (Ktav ashuri). If you're looking for the estrangela script, only the first and second editions have those.
I've honestly never understood why anyone would write out the Peshitta out in square script like a strange square-script-"garshuni." It's a huge and glaring anachronism.

There is but one example of Syriac transcribed into square script this way "in the wild" and it's from a 12th century translator's scratch pad as he was trying to translate a Syriac medical text into late Jewish Aramaic.

I think it is so it will look more "Hebrew" for some reason, and I think David Bauscher wants to try to keep up with Andrew Roth, in both sales and readership. I call Roth's version of The Real Peshitta...."The Hebrashitta", for various reasons.

David Bauscher's version is the simply the UBS text in English translation, which text is a hybrid of the Greek and Aramaic NT. So is Andrew's version for that matter, but less so in the 22 books of the edited UBS text he uses. Andrew's interlinear in "Hebrew" characters, is the UBS text, edited with the Eastern readings worked in...but, not all of them, as I have seen. It's not the Khabouris text there, even though some might have thought so.

I bought the 5th edition of the AENT. I noticed that the pronunciation isn't always correct. I know that there are differences in Aramaic pronunciation (i.e. Assyrian, Syriac & Chaldean) but that is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the use of the Hebrew vowel segol ("e" as in met) being used for the three Aramaic sounds of "i" (as in pit), "e" (as in they) and "e" (as in met). Hebrew has two other vowel pointings that Roth should have used to convey those sounds. Those three vowel pointing are seen in any voweled Hebrew Bible.
I agree. I don't like how modern transcriptions carry over the the ambiguity of other vowel-pointing systems into the sublinear pointing used with Aramaic block script. I can read a number of Semitic scripts, but if Aramaic block script is used, then it should make proper use of the vowel pointing. The best text implementing Tiberian vocalization that I've found is Tremellius' 1569 retroversion of the Eastern Peshitta, which although it is far better than the recent attempts, still has quite a lot of deficiencies of its own.
I personally do not see any issue with the text being rendered in the Ashuri script instead of the Estrangela. I was going to share, but felt that since I am not known at all here that it would be better to share what Paul Younan has written of it:

Quote:Shlama Akhay Aaron and Rev. Dn. Michael,

Shamasha Michael, please also consider the fact that the Ashuri script is, like Estrangelo, an Aramaic script. In fact it is called "Ashuri" because that means "Assyrian" in our language and in Hebrew. It is very different from the original Hebrew script which is still used to this day by the Samaritans.

The work Andrew has done is wonderful, a treasure to all of us. The script will probably look different in another 2,000 years if Aramaic somehow lives that long. It's the same alphabet anyway.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)