WELCOME!

Please sign in or apply for membership

In this Discussion

Contributions
Donations are not tax deductible
Andrew Gabriel Roth
  • As I was searching the Internet I came across a name of a former 'Reformed Jew' whose name is Andrew Gabriel Roth. He claims that the language that the New Testament was scribed to have been Aramaic. He tries to make an argument that the Greek came afterwards and is a corruption of the original. I admit that I lack sufficient information with regards to this guy. He has published a version of the New Testament based on what he says is the original Aramaic. He keeps making reference to the 'Church of The East'. Maybe the Eastern Orthodox church is being referred, but regardless I would like to open a discussion on this topic and would definitely ask that pastor Tim join our discussion as I respect his knowledge on this subject. A friend of mine, who visits this forum, was wise enough to warn me that this guy is suspect, but asked that I bring this topic to the forum for general discussion. I believe in the safety of many counselors and would like to submit this for discussion. Does anyone have any information about Andrew Gabriel Roth that might add to this discussion?
  • If this Andrew is the same Andrew who came here on the old forum a few months ago I would advise you to flee. We completely refuted all his points and he started touting the Book of Jasher as being more accurate than Scripture.
  • I think that was Andy you're thinking of Joel.

    I looked up his eastern church. It's the Assyrian Aramaic Catholic Church of the East or something to that effect. Whatever that means.

    What historical evidence does Roth provide?
  • I don't know anything about this guy, except that he has jumped on the bandwagon (like many in the Hebrew Roots movement) which claim that the NT was not written in Greek, but in Aramaic, and that the Greek is unreliable, even though the earliest witnesses claim that the text was written in Greek, and by far the earliest copies are all Greek., some dating to within a few decades of John's death.

    The Assyrian Church of the East claims that the Peshitta (Aramaic) Bible is the ORIGINAL New Testament, and that all Greek copies were made from it. The problem is that there are Greek copies much older than even the earliest Peshitta copy. Also, linguistic scholars are virtually all agreed that the Peshitta is a translation from Byzantine Greek copies. The Greek Gospels have very strong evidence of being composed in Greek, not Aramaic. All four Gospel writers transliterated Aramaic names, titles, places, or statements of Jesus in Aramaic, but then added "which is interpreted ..." and gave the meaning in Greek. See: Matt. 1:23; Mark 5:41; Mark 15:22; Mark 15:34; John 1:38; John 1:41; Acts 4:36. These kinds of features would NOT be found in a Greek translation of an Aramaic original, because the Aramaic words themselves would need no translation in an Aramaic original intended to be read by Aramaic speaking Jews. Even the Peshitta still contains these "which is interpreted..." statements in Aramaic. This is proof that the Aramaic NT is NOT the original NT. If it was, it would not contain these transliterations with translations, since the original names and words would have been understood, and needed no translation.

    For example: In Mark 15:34, Mark wrote: "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

    The clause, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani," is Aramaic. Mark gave the phonetic sound using Greek characters, and then said, "Which is, being interpreted, 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" If this whole verse had been written in Aramaic originally, then the clause in question would need no translation. If it was originally in Aramaic, it would say this when translated in to English: "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"" Obviously, this would be absurd. Even the Aramaic Bible, the Peshitta, retains the clauses, "which is being interpreted," proving that it is a translation, not the original language.

    Tim
  • I've been reading quite a bit of his stuff today. I think Tim has posted sufficiently enough to encourage one to stay away. Here are some things I found about him.

    Andrew Roth
    Who is he?
    Raised in New York as a Reform Jew, Andrew took an early interest in Hebrew prayer and liturgy. For more than three decades he has studied Hebrew, Aramaic, and the histories behind them.

    What does he believe?
    Regarding the Trinity he states - "The bottom line is: Trinity is wrong on many levels; however, Y'shua had divine and human natures separately but side-by-side."

    Regarding the bible he attacks it as completely unreliable and doctored as a forgery. He states all the versions are unreliable and... - "And the most unreliable and corrupted version of them all is the KJV and its descendants RSV and NKJV."
    He uses the faulty dead sea scroll translations and arguments of the translators against the textus receptus. Thanks to them for putting the bible into question in more than one way.
    Regarding his new Aramaic Translation and the untrustworthy translations he claims " I have laid bare all these fake readings". Which basically he just uses the fake reading argument of Nestlé/Aland and company.
    He further believes the Eastern Peshitta is further evidence against the Greek. But the Peshitta is from the 4th century. I really don't understand his assertions because the Peshitta has been shown that it is a copy from Greek/Hebrew.

    So far as I can tell he has absolutely no evidence to his claims. Nothing. I think the big thing he has in his favor is that a great many christians do not know the difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian texts. They don't know the history of the bible and I'm sure researching it is very dry, to most. I'm no expert, not even close but I know enough to know better.

    One of his statements I found interesting. Using a footnote from the NIV on 1 John 5:7-8 that says ("Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven, the Father, the Word and Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify in earth--not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century.") he states, "This is true because trinity was never, and is not, an original Biblical doctrine. It was a formulation of Constantine, Eusebius and others. Dr. George M. Lamsa deals with it from the Aramaic side, as do I." I'm not going to offer a rebuttal to this charge. What I do want to draw attention to is the name, Dr. George M. Lamsa. This is important because Lamsa attempted to make all the same claims that Roth is making.

    Well who is Lamsa?"He was a man who was into psychic phenomenon, this alone should disqualify him from being a reputable source for the Scriptures. He denied the Trinity which is clearly expressed in his translation, which is why it is accepted by certain churches. This is why it is the most popular translation among the cults. He believed sin was error and he was a universalist believing all would be saved (not even the Iglesia ni Cristo church would accept this). He also believed the Holy Spirit was a influence or power. Like the Sadducee's he denies a belief in personal angels or demons. He also had a view of Christ as 2 persons in one body (Nestorian heresy which some trace to his upbringing) not 2 natures in Christ the one person."

    So there are some similarities between the two. And Roth quotes him a lot. Roth also is a Kabbalist.

    What does he teach?
    His Trinity argument is the same as anyone who argues against the modern Trinity explanation. 3 coequal coeternal persons. He states that the bible shows different aspects of God and we have just mistaken them for the Trinity. Proof again how hypostasis has damaged the gospel truth and he adds to it.

    He teaches you can only access the "power of God" by using his correct name. Basically he is teaching that praying in the name of Jesus is praying to Zeus. Again it the ridiculous name game. It never stops with these guys. He says the correct name to use is MarYah. He states this means Master YHWH. When Jesus ascended he became The Logos again. "You see, as the Word, Y'shua is the firstborn of creation, meaning that he was created directly by YHWH, but "through his hands" everything else was made. It is also for this reason that Y'shua is firstborn of the dead, because the lives of all things were made by him as the Word. However, Y'shua's origins are not from that point, but go back to the eternal age we discussed at the beginning of this essay. Reason being, Y'shua was with Elohim and was Elohim and the Unspoken Word, cleaving to the palate of YHWH's mouth. YHWH's thoughts are actually part of Him. Therefore, since the Unspoken Word is also a thought of His, it is also a part of Him as well. And so, Y'shua exists pre- creation as that Unspoken Word, the Thought that gathers the spiritual particles together before the Utterance gives them life." And he says, "Ruach haKodesh, the Holy Spirit, which is actually another title for Yahweh the Father."..."It's all Yahweh manifesting in different ways."...."the Greek New Testament it actually says "persapone" which means "persons". The Aramaic doesn't say that, it talks about occurrences of the one Divine nature. But if you talk about plural divine personalities, you have now committed idolatry and broken the first two commandments. So, I think we need to get our terms straight and have them rooted in the Semitic mind set that they were originally cast and not rely on English terms that can change at the drop of a hat, things like trinity and tri-unity which were never in the text and are inventions of the 'church fathers' as late as the fourth century."

    He teaches -"The reality is, there is no such thing as the "Church"--there is only a renewed Israel that Gentiles are allowed to join! Further, they do not replace Israel but become part of it!" His point is concerning the Greek word "ekklesia" which he says is a derivative of the Hebrew word "kahal" assembly and "adat" congregation in Ex 12:6 and the Aramaic word used in the Aramaic NT is a cognate of "adat" which is "eidta". So he states, "Each of these words is referenced dozens of times in both Testaments, and has nothing to do with "The Church". Instead, what is clearly seen is that Israel's family is extended to include the entire world coming into her congregation, because it is through Abraham that all nations will be blessed, but only if they follow YHWH's commands!"

    He teaches one must keep sabbath. He states we just have a sloppy reading of Acts 20:7. He writes, "The answer is that it was the first day of the week by Jewish standards, with the time being reckoned from sunset to sunset. By our western calendar though it was not Sunday, but late Saturday night. "Sunday" would not officially begin until midnight, the exact time that the text tells us Paul kept talking to his people!" Really???? Jewish time reckoning? In Troas? There other passages he refute with his Aramaic translation and then spouts he has exhaustively proven himself.

    He teaches Kabbalah(Jewish Mysticism) and he teaches that the Apostle Paul also was a mystic.

    He is a Netzari and believes that one must keep certain relevant parts of the 613 laws(10 Commandments). You must keep kosher, observe the feast, keep the sabbath, and Wearing tzit-zit, the "tassels" on the four corners of our garments. "Today, we don't have "four-cornered" garments, but we can loop them through our belt loops or wear special shirts that have tzit-tzit attached."

    This is just a couple of hours on my iPhone.


    Sources:

    http://aramaicnttruth.org/page.php?page=about
    http://therefinersfire.org/trinity.htm
    http://www.letusreason.org/Iglesia7.htm
    http://aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/ThePathtoLife.pdf
    http://netzari.angelfire.com/g_dhead.html
    http://aramaicnttruth.org/downloads/A RUACH QADIM EXCERPT PAUL THE MYSTIC.pdf
  • After reading what Mike and Tim have written, and after some very good research, I have decided that this guy lacks any credibility whatsoever. I want to thank Mike as well as pastor Tim for their much needed input on this subject. This guy is to be avoided like the plague. There is so much to researching this and I really appreciate the work both have done on this. Mike had asked me to bring this topic in for discussion and I am so glad that I did. I am so grateful to my brothers in Christ who have tendered God's word with such care. Once again, thank you Michael and thank you pastor Tim

    Shalom,
    Terry
  • In his AENT liner he devotes a good portion to the hidden Hebrew code. What sparked my interest was his claim that the Aramaic preceded the Greek so I order his interlinear AENT. He does Believe in the deity of Christ (God manifested in the flesh). He doesn’t believe in the God head. He does argue that the Peshitta came prior to the Greek. I guessing that there was Aramaic documents but I don’t believe the Peshitta was prior to the Greek like he suggests. Otherwise you wouldn’t find text such as Mat 27:46 or Mark 15:34 which means “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” there would be no need for this translation. He believes in salvation thru Christ but is heavy in legalism such as circumcision reasoning the believer must know the why, prior to being circumcised. I would quote Titus 3:9 "Do not get involved in foolish discussion about spiritual pedigrees or in quarrels and fights about obedience to Jewish laws. These things are useless and a waste of time." He had a lot of notes that support his beliefs in his interlinear translation but when it came to text such as Gal 2:12 about circumcision he was silent. In a nut shell his doctrine is off.
This discussion has been closed.
All Discussions