NETZARIM / Hebrew Roots Author , Andrew Roth, MISSED the REAL "RENEWED" COVENANT . . . in his book, the Aramaic-English New Testament

 The AENT Missed the REAL RENEWED COVENANT in Scriptures !

There was indeed a RENEWED COVENANT between The ELOHIM and the people of GOD . . . but Andrew Roth's Aramaic-English NEW TESTAMENT (AENT) failed to identify it.

There was indeed a RENEWED COVENANT between The ELOHIM and the people of GOD . . . but Andrew Roth's Aramaic-English NEW TESTAMENT (AENT) failed to identify it.

The Covenant which had to be RENEWED 

was 

the OLD one !

Under severe penalty of being "cut off" from the commonwealth of Israel ( if one failed to observe it ) , the Old Covenant had to be RENEWED EVERY YEAR at The Passover and feast of Unleavened Bread. 

There was NO CHOICE; it was mandatory . . . if one wished to stay in the flock of GOD.

The Passover Covenant between The ELOHIM and the people of GOD was RENEWED EVERY YEAR during Old Testament times, i.e., before the death and Resurrection of Y'SHU+ the M'SHIKHA+.

The NEW COVENANT is totally different  . . . 

and Mr. Roth's AENT misses it.

This NEW COVENANT  was cut once for all time when The LORD shed His+ BLOOD; it never had to be done again. Once for all time took care of the sin issue between The ELOHIM and man. 

Hebrews 13:20  identifies this EVER-LASTING COVENANT . . . which NEVER has to be renewed  every year, as per The BLOOD+ of  Y'SHU+ the M'SHIKHA+, That GREAT SHEPHERD+ of the sheep.

Unfortunately, Andrew Roth's AENT  presents it backwards, totally backwards.

TRYING to establish a "RENEWED" Covenant in his Aramaic-English New Testament, Mr. Roth re-words verses in the Gospels; he changes the Words spoken by Y'SHU+ at the LORD'S LAST SUPPER; and likewise, he mutates the words spoken by the Apostles and Evangelists in the New Covenant Scriptures.

Unfortunately, Mr. Roth does not translate the Aramaic/ Syriac correctly, thus leading astray an entire contingent of the Hebrew Roots camp.

In other words, he CONFUSES the two  words: new vs renew .

The reason Mr. Roth does this is because BOTH words stem from the SAME ROOT  . . .  so they look similar except for the prefixes and suffixes.  

One word is an adjective, "new", which is used quite extensively in the Gospels and the Letters and Revelation. 

The ADJECTIVE form accompanies a noun or is "understood" to do so, such as "new wine" in the bottles, "new piece of cloth" used to mend a garment, or the "new tomb" where The LORD'S Body was laid.  

The other word IS A VERB which means "renewed"  . . . and it is found EXACTLY SIX TIMES in the Letters to the Church . . . and is in no other place in the New Testament !   

NEVER is the VERB form, "renewed" used in the Gospels. 

This information is freely available for the checking on the Dukhrana.com website in the analytical lexicon section. [ I will walk you through the tabs on that website to track down the uses of  CHaDaT and its forms if you  need help. ]

 ܚܰܕ݂݈ܬ݂ܳܐ

The Aramaic word above is NEW , transliterated as " CHawD , Ta " It is the ADJECTIVE FORM.

 In Colossians 3:10 , we see BOTH the ADJECTIVE form and the VERB form: 

And put you on the NEW (man) that is RENEWED in knowledge, after the likeness of his Creator.

  ~ ~ ~ from Colossians 3:10, Mr. Roth's AENT

See verses below, courtesy of Dukhrana.com

 Colossians 3:10 - ܘܰܠܒ݂ܰܫܘ ܚܰܕ݂݈ܬ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܡܶܬ݂ܚܰܕ݁ܰܬ݂ ܒ݁ܺܝܕ݂ܰܥܬ݂ܳܐ ܒ݁ܰܕ݂ܡܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܒ݂ܳܪܝܶܗ ܀ ^(analyze)

Colossians 3:10 - and wear the new, who is renovated by knowledge in the image of his Creator,
Colossians 3:10 - and put ye on the new [man], that is renewed in knowledge, after the likeness of his Creator;
Colossians 3:10 - And put on the new life which is renewed in knowledge after the pattern in which it was originally created:
Colossians 3:10 - וּלְבַשְׁתֶּם אֶת־הָאָדָם הֶחָדָשׁ הַמִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בַּדַּעַת כְּצֶלֶם בֹּרְאוֹ׃
Colossians 3:10 - et induentes novum eum, qui renovatur in agnitionem secundum imaginem eius, qui creavit illum.
Colossians 3:10 - και ενδυσαμενοι τον νεον τον ανακαινουμενον εις επιγνωσιν κατ εικονα του κτισαντος αυτον

Here we see that (man) is the noun which is "understood" and goes with the adjective "new."   

The verb , RENEWED, is  an ETHPAEL PARTICIPLE form, in the Aramaic grammar. Unlike English participles, the Semitic language particles ARE USED AS VERBS.  In English,  participles must be accompanied by a helping verb ( auxiliary) in order to function as verbs in a sentence.

Oddly enough, Mr. Roth's Aramaic-English New Testament translates NEW in  the appropriate places --- except when in reference to COVENANT !   

The word  in the phrases, "NEW WINE" or "NEW BOTTLES", is EXACTLY THE SAME as the NEW in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 for 

"NEW Covenant in My+ Blood."

Suddenly, NEW, ( the adjective) does not mean "new" when it is found in regards to the actual New Covenant , as in Hebrews 8:8 and 8:13 . . .  in Mr. Roth's AENT.

 [ Again, these verses are courtesy of Dukhrana.com.  The Analyze tab is a link to the page to analyze these Aramaic words. ] Hebrew 8:8

 Hebrews 8:8 - ܪܳܫܶܐ ܠܗܽܘܢ ܓ݁ܶܝܪ ܘܶܐܡܰܪ ܕ݁ܗܳܐ ܝܰܘܡܳܬ݂ܳܐ ܐܳܬ݂ܶܝܢ ܐܳܡܰܪ ܡܳܪܝܳܐ ܘܶܐܓ݂ܡܽܘܪ ܥܰܠ ܒ݁ܰܝܬ݁ܳܐ ܕ݁ܒ݂ܶܝܬ݂ ܐܺܝܣܪܳܝܶܠ ܘܥܰܠ ܒ݁ܰܝܬ݁ܳܐ ܕ݁ܒ݂ܶܝܬ݂ ܝܺܗܽܘܕ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܺܝܰܬ݂ܺܩܺܐ ܚܕ݂ܰܬ݂ܳܐ ܀ ^(analyze)

Hebrews 8:8 - For reprehending them he saith, Behold, the days are coming, saith the Lord, and I will complete with [Upon] the family of the house of Israel, and with the family of the house of Jihuda, THE NEW COVENANT:  ~ Dr. Etheridge's translation.
Hebrews 8:8 - For he chideth them and saith: Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will complete with the family of the house of Israel, and with the family of the house of Judah, a new covenant; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Dr. Murdock's translation.
Hebrews 8:8 - For he found fault with them, and said, Behold, the day is coming, saith the LORD, when I will perfect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:  ~ G. Lamsa's translation.
Hebrews 8:8 - כִּי־כֹה אָמַר בְּהוֹכִיחַ אֹתָם הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם־יְהוָֹה וְכָרַתִּי אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוּדָה בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה׃
Hebrews 8:8 - Vituperans enim eos dicit: Ecce dies venient, dicit Dominus: et consummabo super domum Israel, et super domum Iuda testamentum novum, ~ ~ ~~ Clementine Vulgate
Hebrews 8:8 - μεμφομενος γαρ αυτοις λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

~ ~ ~ Robinson-Pierpont's translation.

 +  +  +

Mr. Roth even re-words Jeremiah 31:31 ( ! ) making the NEW COVENANT promised through the prophet into a RENEWED Covenant, in his footnotes at Hebrews 8:7, 8, 10, and 13 ( See page 412, footnotes 41 through 45, AENT, mis-pagination edition. ) 

Mr. Roth devoted 8 pages in his appendix to prove his point of there being a RENEWED Covenant made by the Blood of The LAMB+ which extended into the New Covenant era.

For all his elaborate explanations stemming from the Hebrew Scriptures, Mr. Roth once again runs afoul of the grammar and meanings of the Hebrew word for NEW and RENEWED.

The Hebrew word follows the SAME PATTERN as the Aramaic word, in this instance: that is, the word form is pointed one way for the ADJECTIVE and a DIFFERENT WAY for the VERB FORM.

Unfortunately, his FACTS are wrong, 

as well as his concept.

In every Old Testament verse Mr. Roth lists on page 942 - 943 in his appendix with the Hebrew word used as RENEW,  it is always in the VERB form and most assuredly is to be translated as RENEW.   [ Roughly: "CHaw-Dash" ]

But just as assuredly, that Hebrew word when POINTED DIFFERENTLY ( vowel points), is an ADJECTIVE and is so used in the Old Testament. This Hebrew word is similar to the Aramaic ( which is why Mr. Roth used it for his argument.)

The adjective form is, roughly,  "CHaw-Daw-SH" . 

In other words, his elaborate explanation is worthless; those OT verses he quoted do not prove in any way that the ADJECTIVE "new"  should be translated as the VERB , "renewed " . . . because there is no adjectival use of that word in those verses !

As a matter of fact, the two Strong's numbers that he disparagingly gives for this Hebrew word, #2318 and #2319 , point out the DIFFERENCE in the vowel points AND THE DIFFERENT MEANING of these two words.

Mr. Strong is not alone; this difference is ALSO DISTINGUISHED in (Jewish scholar) Benjamin Davidson's classic Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, page 249, denoting the adjective "new" . 

"NEW" as the adjective form is also found in (Jewish scholar)  Ernest Klein's : A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English, page 207. 

Furthermore, the top Aramaic authority for such items is the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon [CAL] from Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati.

CAL makes the same difference between the verb form ( renew) and the adjective form ( new ) IN THE ARAMAIC LANGUAGE. [ See the CAL analysis of Matthew 26:28  on the Dukhrana. com website for a NT verse with NEW in it,  with the language analysis given in English along with the Aramaic words of each verse. ]

So . . . by  WHAT AUTHORITY does Mr. Roth  CHANGE A GRAMMATICAL WORD meaning which is found in BOTH the Hebrew and the Aramaic language scholars' works, in his Aramaic-English New Testament ? 

 

Mr. Roth calls the NEW COVENANT a "renewed" Covenant in Matthew 26:28 , re-wording the WORD+ of GOD from the mouth of Our LORD: " . . . for this is the RENEWED Covenant in MY+ BLOOD”, as he falsely so states.

Mr. Roth has NO manuscript authority for changing NEW to RENEWED.  Nor is there any justification in the grammar, spelling, or any linguistic area to warrant such a change.

NOR IS THERE ANY  historic justification in the Syriac Church or Church of the East to substantiate Mr. Roth's re-wording of Scriptures.

Let the reader BEWARE ; Mr. Roth's word changes also change the CONCEPTS presented in the New Testament as TRUTH.

But, Mr. Roth cannot change the TRUTH; he can only blaspheme against it.

 Let the reader BEWARE. 

+  +  +

Matthew 26:28 - ܗܳܢܰܘ ܕ݁ܶܡܝ ܕ݁ܕ݂ܺܝܰܬ݂ܺܩܺܐ ܚܰܕ݂݈ܬ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܚܠܳܦ݂ ܣܰܓ݁ܺܝܶܐܐ ܡܶܬ݂ܶܐܫܶܕ݂ ܠܫܽܘܒ݂ܩܳܢܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܚܛܳܗܶܐ ܀ (analyze)

Matthew 26:28 - this (is) my blood of the new covenant, which for multitudes is shed for the remission of sins. ~ Dr. Etheridge’s translation.

Matthew 26:28 - This is my blood of the new testament, which, in behalf of many, is shed for the remission of sins. ~ Dr. Murdock’s translation   - כִּי זֶה הוּא דָּמִי דַּם־הַבְּרִית הַחֲדָשָׁה הַנִּשְׁפָּךְ בְּעַד רַבִּים לִסְלִיחַת חֲטָאִים׃ Matthew 26:28 -   Matthew 26:28 - Hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem

Matthew 26:28 - Hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Matthew 26:28 - τουτο γαρ εστιν το αιμα μου το της καινης διαθηκης το περι πολλων εκχυνομενον εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων  Robinson-Pierpont’s Greek Translation 2005 ~  ~  ~ Courtesy of Dukhrana.com