False teachers attack the AENT

Every literary work of art has its critics, and the Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) is no exception. The work of Andrew Gabriel Roth, who translated the Khabouris Codex (the oldest New Testament ever discovered, which was written in all Aramaic) has, of late, been attacked by various people, including a man who has produced his own NT version, Rev. Dave Bauscher.

Bauscher and a couple of his minions, whose foul-mouths reveal that some "Christians" are anything but godly, has been prolific in his vitriolic posts across the internet, including at Amazon.com under the "Book Review" section on the page that advertises the AENT, making unfounded - not to mention - extremely slanderous allegations. He has even incited his friend, Rabbi Michael Rood into making a slanderous YouTube video - which was removed after much protest from friends of Andrew Roth....

Anyone who attempts to dialogue with Bauscher and his hangers-on is viciously attacked with dialogue that would make a sailor blush. Andrew Gabriel Roth has therefore, provided the following statement on behalf of himself and the AENT:

By Andrew Gabriel Roth

Introduction: Some Good Advice

Shlama (peace) to all who read this letter. Many of you have been hearing false charges about the nature of the AENT concerning what it is in general and that it is plagiarized in particular. These charges are led by three people, and I will deal with them one by one by the end of this letter, but first I will explain in graphic detail how I have done absolutely nothing wrong and why these people should be ashamed of themselves.

My first statement to this effect is this: My critics need to learn to read and understand basic terminology in the English language, so my advice is for them to first know what it is they are saying before they say it. What follows may sound pedantic to some and for that I apologize in advance, but both the tone and the scope are necessary to refute these satanic inspired ramblings and to eliminate confusion for those who may not be privy to the real facts and are hearing only the lies. I do not mean to talk down to anyone who reads this, except of course to the original offenders who have engaged in ad hominum attacks that have base motives and a hidden agenda that I will now expose.

Getting the Facts Straight on Plagiarism

So, to make sure all are on the same page, let me define some key terms, from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary:

Plagiarize: Function: verb Inflected Form(s): pla·gia·rized; pla·gia·riz·ing Etymology: plagiary Date: 1716 transitive verb: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

In addition, from a legal standpoint, the "literary theft" and the "existing source" is one that is under copyright that is being mis-appropriated. Now that we have this definition down, let us compare it to what I did for AENT:

  • : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own. (another's production) without crediting the source intransitive verb.

As many people know, "Mari" was originally intended as an acronym for "Murdock-Roth-Younan" as well as the Aramaic term spelled m-r-y which means "my master". I announced this title on peshitta.org in 2005. One of my critics, Albion Guppy, used this as an accusation against me on peshitta.org before he left. He didn't even have the decency to use his own name at first, but in a cowardly manner stood behind a pseudonym "The Truth Committee".

As this name implies, I admit fully to comparing in vast detail the texts of Paul Younan and James Murdock. The name also speaks to a kind of collaboration, where sometimes I use my readings, sometimes theirs, and sometimes I expand and footnote on what they have.

In every instance, I have made proper attribution for their readings. In the footnotes that originally belonged to Paul Younan I put (PY); same for James Murdock as (JM). But in many, many cases also I have gone beyond their notes and their readings, and documented that too. Therefore, I have neither taken these texts for my own nor failed to give proper attribution. I will get to the matter of how my translating plays into this later on.

Now let us go to the next part of this definition:

  • : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

This is a variation on the same idea, and yet there are many things in AENT that are "new and original" even if not counting the translation. In addition to about 1500 footnotes that are totally original to myself and many others that are expansions on original footnotes by Murdock and Younan, here are just some of the features of AENT that are unique to it:

(1) Introductory materials.

(2) The recovery of the Eastern text according to Khabouris.

(3) More than 350 pages, consisting of more than 70 essays, on the historical and textual processes that went into AENT's production.

(4) The careful comparison between Khabouris and the1905-20 Critical Edition.

(5) The re-ordering of the Renewed Covenant Books onto "scrolls" for improved understanding.

(6) A primer to the Aramaic alap-beet and vowel system used in AENT.

In short, if I were plagiarizing according to this definition, I sure made a lot of extra work for myself. The last part of this definition concerns the legal understanding I referenced above. Specifically: Even if everything my critics said is true, you cannot plagiarize from a public domain source!

In other words, if I can show Paul Younan and James Murdock's sources are public domain, there is no literary theft. Starting with Paul, here is his statement on the copyright of his interlinear, from www.peshitta.org:

Copyright Information

Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament. Any part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without any prior permission.

"Freely you have received, freely give" Mattai 10:8


Now, for those who may not be aware, copyright law keeps a work original for 70 years after the author's death. James Murdock has been dead more than 150 years. While it is true that some publishers can re-do his work and their publication/changes are protected, this is not true of the original work which I used, unless a copyright renewal was filed. The question is, was it? Here is what Google Books and Microsoft's Internet Archive, the two largest repositories of public domain resources on the internet, had to say:

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired.

To see the full statement regarding this status, one need only download the book from Google.

As for Internet Archive, let's take a look there:

Author: James Murdock
Publisher: Stanford and Swords
Year: 1852
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: English
Digitizing sponsor: Google Book contributor: Harvard University Collection: americana

Finally, there is this excerpt from the AENT itself, p v: "To retain as much consistency as possible, Paul Younan's translation has been compared from Matthew 1 to Acts 15 and James Murdock's translation for the remainder, each word has been cross-checked with Aramaic"....

So let's stop here. Who is doing the "cross checking with Aramaic"? I am. In other words, I am validating (or disagreeing) with their work by doing my own translation work from them and from Khabouris. Again, if I am just plagiarizing, why do triple the work? The AENT explanation, same page, continues:

In some cases, both sources are woven together with translation, under a unifying editorial vision and approach. That approach includes the following: In places where James Murdock used the later Western Peshitto readings, the Eastern originals have been restored. In places where a more accurate or detailed reading was required than detailed by my mentors, the preferred readings were substituted in this edition.

So where is the subterfuge? These details were discussed on the internet, in private email correspondences and on the website www.aent.org that premiered a month before physical copies were available. In the more than three years that I discussed this project publicly, I have always used the title "Mari" in part or alone 100% of the time to make this clear. It is not my fault that some didn't pay attention to this or the additional pages I devote to explaining exactly how AENT was put together in that introduction.

Defining Other Terms:

On the AENT website as well as in the title page of the published work we read:

MARI
PESHITTA ENGLISH ARAMAIC CRITICAL EDITION
A COMPILATION, ANNOTATION AND TRANSLATION OF THE EASTERN ORIGINAL ARAMAIC NEW TESTAMENT PESHITTA TEXT


So, "Mari" has been explained and the second line is obvious, except that I intended it as a pun for the first letter of each word there to spell out "PEACE", making the full title "The Master's Peace" along with "Murdock-Roth-Younan". But let's look at the other words here:

Com·pi·la·tion, Function: noun Date: 15th century 1 : the act or process of compiling 2 : something compiled (a compilation of hit songs)

Com·pile, Function: transitive verb, Inflected Form(s): com·piled; com·pil·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French compiler, from Latin compilare to plunder Date: 14th century 1 : to compose out of materials from other documents 2 : to collect and edit into a volume 3 : to build up gradually (compiled a record of four wins and two losses)

While the root may be closer to what some are accusing me of, I think the real intentions of this word by me are obvious. I am admitting openly that much of what came about in AENT is "derived out of materials from other documents". This is not only true of the Murdock and Younan texts, but of the Aramaic sources as well. There is simply no way to do an interlinear without this happening, but the key is to give proper attribution and know what is and is not public domain. Whether the source was English or Aramaic, I did this openly, honestly and universally. Next phrase:

An·no·ta·tion, Function: noun Date: 15th century 1 : a note added by way of comment or explanation 2 : the act of annotating

This definition not only covers the notes of Murdock and Younan that were carried over and/or expanded, but also my own stand-alone notes, essays, research materials, etc. It is yet another way that I have strived to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of what I was doing.

Last definition:

trans·la·tion, Function: noun Date: 14th century 1: an act, process, or instance of translating: as a: a rendering from one language into another ; also : the product of such a rendering b: a change to a different substance, form, or appearance.

All these definitions apply to AENT. Put simply, it takes genuine Aramaic knowledge to not just put in lines of my own making but to comment in footnotes and essays on the work of those who came before me. I do this not just for Younan and Murdock, but for Lamsa, Etheridge and so on. In subsequent editions of AENT, you can count on me expanding this process. I will most certainly incorporate and give attribution to other experts that I admire, such as William Norton, CC Torrey, John Gwynn and others. I also encourage the reader to check out Galatians, which did before AENT and which is word for word translated on my websites.

The next definition, "change to different form, substance, or appearance" also applies. Murdock's work was not an interlinear and didn't use the Eastern text, and so I translated the Eastern portions and footnoted the differences. Younan's was an interlinear, but it was not complete, going at that time only to Acts 15.

The idea was to take the best of these and my own work, and put it together in one place. I did this for my readers, so they would not have to toggle between half a dozen separate volumes for translation work and who knows how many other works for Nazarene history and halakha that form the last 350 pages of the volume.

Furthermore, the Aramaic text itself was neither 1905-20 nor exclusively Khabouris. It was a restoration of Eastern readings when meaning was compromised by later versions, and all variances were footnoted or discussed in detail elsewhere so that the reader could decide for him or herself what made best sense to them.

I could have taken an easier road of just plain English text with little explanation or with just my vision of how it should read, but to do so would do my readers a disservice. It was they who begged me to bring together all I could find and all I knew. They had questions about why Lamsa or Murdock or Etheridge read this way, why there were differences in Eastern and Western Aramaic readings and so on.

One of my critics, Reverend David Bauscher, would have his readers believe the most recent Aramaic version-the Western Peshitto-was letter for letter identical to the "autographs" and divinely encoded so that ELS research would apply to this "perfect" text. This simply is not true, as the "Western Five" were never part of the original Peshitta collection and even within the Eastern books there are cases where their original readings were perverted in Western Aramaic. These facts are beyond dispute, as both the Roman and Syrian Orthodox Churches freely admit the alterations they did to the Eastern originals. That is why I took it upon myself to show this complex chain of custody in both my books and AENT.

Some may ask though: "Don't you also say that the page must be as blank as possible to translate in the introduction?" The answer is yes of course, and so it was when I started this research two decades back. I began by looking at the Aramaic word for word and line by line. I saved hundreds of emails and smaller essays on my hard drive of the countless places I translated and then compared, and in the end, after all this painstaking checking on both the Aramaic and English sides, I came up with a validated, scholarly and defensible translation. I didn't just cut and paste Murdock or Younan-I confirmed their work myself for the benefit of all.

And Now To My Critics:

When you are reading these rantings of men like Bauscher, Guppy and Dooley, you should bear in mind certain key facts:

Dave Bauscher:

First let's start with this assessment of his Aramaic skills by Paul Younan, a native Aramaic speaker:

By Paul Younan on Sun Apr 04, 2004 8:35 pm

Shlama Akhi Dave,

...with all due respect, I strongly suspect that you are a monolingual person. No one who can effectively communicate in more than one language would ever suggest that there must be direct cognates in two different languages 100% of the time, all the time. That is nonsensical. Think about it....

I do hope you choose to understand His words in his native idiom, rather than in your own 21st-century English idiom.

+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan


Note also please that Bauscher had already begun "translating" even when he didn't understand one of the most basic aspects of Semitic languages:

By gbausc on Fri Apr 02, 2004 10:31 pm

Shlama Akhi Paul,

Exactly what is a "Casus Pendens"? I gather from Gesenius Hebrew Grammar that it involves a participle.

It seems that your subject always includes the main verb and that the non verbal predicate is usually a predicate nominative, renaming the subject in the previous category which you call casus pendens.

Please clarify. I am very interested in your Semitic syntax idea being used by The Greek. It seems to be valid. I just want to be sure of the grammatical argument involved.

Many blessings,

Dave B

gbausc


As for his temperament, the reader should be aware that the "Reverend" has engaged in hateful speech toward me for at least 5 years. This post from 2004 is a perfect case in point to his hostility that also showcases his Aramaic understanding from his own mouth at that time.

By gbausc on Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:37 am

Akha Paul,

Thankyou for correcting my spelling; I hate incorrect spelling in any language; I admit I am not an expert in Aramaic; I am quite good at NT Greek and French; Hebrew to a lesser extent.

Yes , I am a heretic, by most Church Council standards; I hope to die a heretic. I would very disappointed in myself if I don't. I want to follow Him who said, "Take up your cross and follow Me." "If the world hated me , it will hate you also." "Woe to you when all speak well of you; blessed are ye when men shall hate you, persecute you and speak all manner of evil against you, falsely for my sake..."

All I have done was to express my position and now I am told, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

Andrew seems a bit sensitive and thin skinned. That's OK, I can take banishment; I would rejoice all the more for Christ's sake.

I may be mistaken about some things; I have been wrong before; I am honest about what I believe and constantly ask The Father for His guidance and wisdom, and implicitly believe in His word.

I have found that many who profess faith in Christ and God have never known either in a personal sense. Doctrine and works of righteousness which we have done can never save us- only being born of the Spirit from above can do that.

I say you are ignorant of God; I say Andrew is ignorant of God. I will trust your future salvation to Him. He has made provision for it and for all men in His own time.

I wish you well; I will not post any more; You may remove my forum and posts if you wish. I do not sense any liberty with you guys; I sense a sectarian legalism and censorship of speech and ideas. God's spirit cannot abide in such a mind.

You would persecute The Son of Man if he were in the flesh on earth today; indeed , He is in the flesh on earth today and you do persecute Him as did the Scribes and Pharisees of the first century.

Yes , you persecute Him for telling you the truth of God and challenging your false doctrine. I know you will ridicule me even more for writing these words and mock me for them.

You might take pause before you do so, if you believe the words, "He that receives him that I send receives me; He that rejects him that I send, rejects Me also."

All the best followers of Christ are heretics and fools; They are His representatives, as He died as a heretic and fool. Beware what you do to us; If Satan has his way, you will let your hate possess you and go on a full fledged attack against God in the name of your religion, as did Saul of Tarsus.

Perhaps that is the best way; perhaps you will meet him on the road to Damascus when He knocks you off your high horse and gives you the blinding light of His presence and truth.

Of course, I may be crazy, as you think; but what if I am right ? Jesus was thought to be crazy by His brothers; Paul was thought mad by Festus.I also have the Spirit of God; If you believe I am a heretic and deceiver, say out loud that I am a child of Satan, and see what happens to you.

Amen & Amen

Dave B


And in case the reader is wondering if David moderated his rhetoric towards me in the years since, here is one of his last posts from the forum, after which he ran away like a coward. As usual, this arose from his failure to understand the details of a theological position held by both myself and Paul Younan.[1]

FOOTNOTE: [1] In a separate post Paul Younan even said that Bauscher's position was never held in any of the ancient Aramaic speaking assemblies.


Re: God Did NOT Die

By gbausc on Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:58 pm

Shlama All,

Gentlemen, you have ignored the scriptures I posted and refuse to deal with them. God was born and God had to die.[2] That is what it says. Deal with it. Andrew, your view of Yeshua is sheer blasphemy from Hell. You are saying He is a man indwelt by God.[3]

Scripture plainly states many times that He is the Creator of the universe- Yahweh Elohim. If I believed what you believe I would throw my Bible in the trash and never preach again nor put any stock in anything in The Bible.

Yeshua did not say he was the most Spirit filled man to ever live, though He certainly was that; He said "I AM" God 25 times in John's Gospel alone-"Ena na", which indicates Divine speech 97% of the 200 times it occurs in The Peshitta OT. He is named "MarYah" 32 times in the NT.

Anyone who says what you say about Yeshua does not know Yeshua at all. Know I know "what the Hell is the matter with you", Andrew. Thankfully, you are not an ordained preacher, though I dread to think of the influence your published bilge has on the souls of men, and has even here at Peshitta.org[4].

As the Word of God seems inconsequential to you and Paul and you are above being corrected by scripture, I cannot continue as a member here. Please delete me from the membership and the link to my web site and forum. I cannot in good conscience continue to fraternize with you, since you do not believe in MarYah Yeshua Meshikha or in the scriptures (Peshitta or otherwise) and I must separate myself from such apostasy.

I hope others here will see this clearly as a scriptural position and mandate on my part. I am very saddened and grieved by what Andrew has written above, but I believe it reveals his true heart and mind. I know He has stated previously differently about Yeshua. I also know that years ago he expressed pretty much what he just wrote again above-"Yeshua is not YHWH"; He is the greatest man who ever lived or will live.

Ladies and Gentlemen, he is saying Yeshua is a Man, and no more![5] Is that what you expect from a Peshitta Bible scholar and translator? I am stunned! My mind is reeling right now since reading Andrew's post....

Dave Bauscher

gbausc

FOOTNOTES:

[2] If YHWH died on the cross, the universe would stop running, but Bauscher clearly misunderstands my position to mean that I deny Y'shua's divinity (from the sharing of the one divine nature) and that he was the Word sent by YHWH's mouth to follow His will in creation. Neither supposition is true. I do however reject Trinity as a proper formulation of this reality, and that is an aspect Bauscher cannot stand.

[3] Actually Isaiah 11:1-2 says that, but the fullness of YHWH within Y'shua is confirmed in Isaiah 9:6.

[4] I agree, and thank YHWH that I am not "ordained" in any faith paradigm that Bauscher endorses, nor do I ever call myself "rabbi".

[5] Actually I am not saying Y'shua was merely a man. I am saying he had a sharing of the one divine nature in his qnoma, and that Y'shua's human nature was separate but side by side with this divine qnoma. Such is the consistent position in my writings, comparing even from Tanakh sources such as Isaiah 11:1-2 and Zechariah 12:10, but Bauscher never took the time to understand that. This is the meaning of "Not my will, but Your will be done". Paul Younan called his knowledge of this key Aramaic term deficient on many occasions, and without that understanding, he is utterly unqualified to translate the Peshitta, then or now.



How's that for Christian love from a minister of the cross? And from these we should conclude you, David Bauscher, are totally objective now in trashing my work? I don't think so.

On the other hand, during this same period, I did my best to respect him. When his Bible Codes approach got ridiculed, I defended him. When he thought I made a mistake, I listened to him and sometimes agreed and corrected the error, other times agreed to disagree. I did my very best to follow Y'shua's command to love my enemies and pray and do good to those who persecuted me.

It should also be noted that Bauscher also has his own version of a Peshitta translation to promote and I know how mine is selling and the reviews I received from Christians and Messianics alike, which have been overwhelmingly positive. On Peshitta.org, many people thought the Codes aspect of his work was spurious as I said, and others didn't like his usage of common names (Jesus, God, etc) in his translation. I told David publicly that there was room for both Christian and Nazarene approaches, and that my work was specifically for Nazarenes and those Christians interested in Hebraic and Aramaic foundations of their faith.

Bauscher, however, could not abide my positions on Shabbat, Trinity and Torah observance, and he has now assumed that he knows my faith walk without any proof, witnesses or evidence of any kind. Because I offered a different viewpoint and because my work is in competition with his, I suggest the reader take his opinions with a proverbial grain of salt, to say the least. His hatred against Nazarene theology is very evident to anyone who has read his posts on Peshitta.org and his current behavior proves this has not changed since he left.

Albion Guppy

Albion Guppy was for three years one of the most ardent supporters of my project. This makes his accusations against me surprising, but he has not stopped me in the slightest. Albion is a man of emotional extremes, who on the Peshitta.org forum and in private letters and emails to me has voiced conspiracy theories around every corner. Out of concern to not totally destroy him, I will not re-produce those letters in total here. I will however appeal to what remains of these posts on Peshitta.org as well as to the many witnesses there, including Paul Younan. Just do a search…particularly concerning someone called "Silver Crow".

Albion furthermore was the only person given an advance copy of my translation of Matthew. He loved it. Not once did he raise a single objection to it. In fact, this is what he said:

Mari/P.E.A.C.E. (Matthew's Gospel) Review

By *Albion* on Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:25 pm

Shlama Friends,

Last night, our Akhi Andrew Gabriel Roth, e-mailed me a copy of Matthew's gospel, along with all of it's footnotes and study notes.

WOW! That's my first really pertinent comment!

I feel wholly inadequate to review even the first Book of a work of this spiritual magnitude.

First, I want to speak about something that I consider to be a very important issue.

For those of you who are not really into Biblical End Times eschatology, please indulge me here.

I want to say that it's my belief that Our Sovereign Elohim ('God') gave this work into the hands of A JEW to complete.

I want us all to REALLY think on this. It was the Jews who first gave us the New Covenant, and now here in this rather dark time on our little blue planet, God has chosen another Jew to bring us the Good News of Messiah, in a form that we can ALL understand, and that we can all love.

This (to the best of my knowledge) is the 10th Syriac to English translation of either the Eastern Peshitta, or the Western Peshitto.

And it's only the second complete Eastern Peshitta New Covenant published in the last 70 YEARS !

But I think that The Father saved it for this time, that is so near to The End of Days. I honestly do.

In a kind of perfect redemptive Way of doing things, this is the nearest that we are ever going to get to a PERFECT TRANSLATION of the Eastern Peshitta.

The thing that struck me with the most force, is that this is an imminently READABLE translation.

How long have we looked for this? Some of us have looked for it for literally YEARS.

For anyone that knows even a little transliterated Syriac, Mari/P.E.A.C.E. is very easily understood, and there are are a few words that might not have been read in any New Covenant for perhaps over 2,000 years now (unless of course, your native tongue is Syriac).

The Father's Name is "Master YHWH", and the Son's Name is "Y'shua".

I feel very comfortable with both of these as Names.

The footnotes and study notes are many, and I barely had the time to just touch even the surface there.

There is 'a tenderness' to this translation that I can't fully comprehend, nor describe with any words from the English language.

Andrew nailed it, you FEEL this translation, and it can take you through a very ancient Door, that perhaps was not even meant to be opened until this time.

That's the mystic part of myself speaking, but I honestly feel an Ancientness from this text, but yet at the same time, a fresh and vibrant and completely ALIVE version of Matthew's Good News.

I can also feel all of the work that has gone into just this one Book alone. And it's almost unbelievable how GOOD that it turned out.

Not that Andrew doesn't have "the Right Stuff", he obviously DOES have it powerfully, but we're talking about walking up a pretty much 2,000 year old hill here, with ALL of "the collective baggage" that that brings with it.

But YHWH Always works things out in His Perfect Time, and I have nothing but great things to say about Andrew, and his publishing partner, Baruch.

I wish to say 'Thank You Both' for allowing me to write this review. I'm a broken man in many ways, but I always KNEW that you could pull this off.

I knew it a year ago, when I wrote that Magiera review, and here we are getting closer, and closer, to publication.

That's frankly the only negative thing that I have to say, is that we ALL cannot buy a copy of Mari/P.E.A.C.E. tomorrow morning!!

Andrew, if I heard you correctly, you guys have maybe another few weeks or so to go, and it could be August, just as easily as in what's left of July?

Is that kind of what I heard you say? Apologies if it is not, and just mark me "excited", and I heard wrong from reading through too much Joy!

Friends, if YOU want to read Messiah's Words in a translation that will uphold YOUR FAITH, you need to buy a copy of Mari/P.E.A.C.E., as soon as you can!

Thank you Andrew!

Your Brother in Messiah, Albion

Last edited by *Albion* on Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:54 pm, edited 2 times in total. *Albion*


Please take note of the date of the post. AENT (or Mari) did not ship until mid-October, so Albion had Matthew for more than three months. He was intimately aware of Paul Younan's translation that I supposedly "plagiarized" from having been on Peshitta.org for at least 4 years prior to this time. Incidentally, the bolding and font colors are all Albion's in this case. This is his record of enthusiasm for AENT exactly as it was originally rendered.

So what changed? I can hardly tell, except to say that I know Albion faced some tremendous personal issues that drove him to despair and then he apparently began talking with Bauscher about things.

I can also state from first hand experience that Albion has repeatedly gone through violent mood swings where he would accuse me or other people of things only to regret it later. He repeatedly takes things out of context and has to be gently brought back to truth. But when this happened and he left the forum after attacking me under an alias, I saw no point to going through this again with him. The proof, as I said, is still on Peshitta.org for anyone who wishes to view it.

Finally Albion had an almost religious zealotry attached to AENT that I repeatedly tried to manage. I told him no translation was perfect. I told him no translation could live up to his expectations.

And so, when the first edition came out, he began by pointing out typos, which I welcomed because that would make later editions better. Then he complained about the cover, and Baruch eventually took that suggestion even though both he and I thought the original one was fine, we wanted to make it better. Baruch spent hours consoling Albion about various problems he had and to which he attached AENT as his ultimate answer. It is for these reasons that I believe any slight imperfection in AENT to Albion would be viewed as a betrayal or what he had been longing for so many years, as he says above.

All I have to say about these things is that my door has and always is open to suggestions on AENT, most of which we have agreed with and all of which we appreciate. The answer for my critics then is not to insult me personally or make blind accusations, but rather to ask me about these things and know I will consider them. Albion and I did have limited exchanges in this regard in the beginning; but the other two simply stormed ahead with their lies without even asking me a single question.

Ryan Dooley

Of these three, Ryan, or "Amatsyah" is the most curious to me. Ryan praised me for years for pointing him to Aramaic and credited it with "saving faiths", from http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Articles/key_articles/saves_faiths.htm:

"Thanks for assisting me in my quest to figure out why there are different words between Greek-based versions. Honestly, your work and Andrew Roth's work have practically saved me from abandoning faith in the Bible, and more importantly, the God of the Bible! I was SO sick of looking at one version of the Bible, then another, just to find completely different words being used.

How am I supposed to get to know God if I can't even have His REAL Word? So, my frustration turned to anger, anger to rage, rage to wrath, wrath to disowning God. But finding the Peshitta's Truth and its specific Truths in your work, made me just go "WOW God! I love you so much!!!" It was a crucial stepping stone to trusting God again. His Ruach started the whole thing, but coming back to Him in Truth was absolutely vital, and yes, your work definitely helped me do that! It just makes sense.

And what I like about it is that it is the TRUTH, discovered by you. Finding your work was so exhilarating; it was like discovering a dinosaur of a website bigger than any previously known! No I am not that guy whose faith was saved by your work from years ago, but it goes to show you that your work has the same effect by the power of the Ruach as it did on that other guy. Due to errors in the Greek version/s my faith was twaddling in the pigpen, and I just had a burning intuition that the New Testament was written in Hebrew. After watching the Passion of the Christ, I decided to do a wikipedia search for Aramaic, and there you and Andrew Roth were!!! I actually got introduced to his work through yours, and so his tremendous help is thanks also to you!

Anyway, I poured hours into your work, devouring it and feeling my faith come alive again when reading how Alaha Abba HAD INDEED preserved something special for me after all!!!!! It was then that my faith was increased enough to pray again, and praise again, and love Him again. So, thank you for your labors, and yes you can use my testimony, as I know personally how effective they can be. That is one of the first places I looked in your work for credibility. And seeing some Joe-schmoe from China or Australia give a personal testimony rang MUCH truer to your authenticity than having a couple of well-known scholars write up a professional review for you. Thanks again for your precise mind and heart into this work, and I look forward to your completed edition.

Also, my heart goes out to you, do not be discouraged. Please, see how Satan is attacking you. Your work hurts him. THE original Bible... Heck, you probably have a special satanic agent working against you!!! But be of good cheer, your persecution is of righteousness' sake, because your labors are undoubtedly of the Ruach, and your own spirit tells me that. I just encourage you to continue living in the light, and it will eventually break through, just as dawn turns into day! You've helped me tremendously, so likewise I will freely help you all that I can, by proclaiming the message of Alaha Abba's Truth. I've already shared your work, freely of course, with a pastor who loves it.

I heavily recommend "Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?" It rocked my world!"

Ryan Dooley, USA


Now granted, Ryan was talking about my previous books and Raphael's work since AENT was not out at that time. I should add to this the fact that Ryan sent me countless questions via email for which he expressed gratitude in my answering. I don't mean to toot my own horn, at least not excessively, but it does seem odd that he praises me for my knowledge in 2006 and thinks I have forgotten everything by 2009.

I believe that Ryan has been duped because the complexities of putting AENT together were not fully understood by him and then he got sucked in to the lies of these others, but I can never know for sure.

What is certain is that Ryan never bothered to return my kindness with a single email or question, for which I would have been all too happy to explain to him as I did everything else.

Conclusion

All three of these men have said that they think I should repent, when it is they who need to do so. A man of the cloth judges and condemns without proof and forgets about "love is patient, love is kind" from 1 Corinthians 13. He doesn't seek an explanation from me and resides in his hatred of my faith and lineage, expressly going against John 4 and Romans 3 & 11. We should be brothers in faith in spite of our disagreements (John 17), for in Y'shua there is neither Jew nor Aramean nor Gentile nor male nor female, nor slave nor free. All are one. If this isn't proof of the indictment against not many becoming teachers (James 3:1) because they are subject to greater judgment, I don't know what is.

As for Albion and Ryan, their behavior is equally reprehensible to the Body of Messiah and ultimately less understandable than Bauscher, who has at least been up front in his hostility against me from the very beginning.

In the end this comes down to in my judgment two main factors. First, a total misunderstanding or ignorance of the information I had given on AENT well in advance of its publication, along with basic English terms, and second a rush to judgment in all three men for which they will be subject to later. As Bauscher's own title suggests, there is a Witness Heap between YHWH, me and them, and YHWH will ultimately judge between us.

This is a fair accounting of all that went on with the production of AENT. May YHWH have mercy on their souls.

Peace and blessings

Andrew Gabriel Roth

April 25, 2009