Woo Hoo!! Antioch Bible is Shipping!

DMB

That's a pre-pub I thought would see the 'last days' before I'd see it.

https://www.logos.com/product/41957/the-antioch-bible

And it's the good stuff too. Not Lamentations and Song of Solomon. Ha.

It also illustrates pre-pubbing early. I couldn't afford the current pre-pub price. Definitely not the regular.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JAL

I rejoice with you - though I was not an early bird and can't afford it at present.

I will be watching for further postings once you've gotten it downloaded and indexed.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/725895#Comment_725895

I'm excited for you Denise. Please review it for us one you have had a chance to use it for a bit. I wish I knew Syriac to really benefit from it. The price is also not for the faint of heart.

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/725956#Comment_725956

The price is also not for the faint of heart.

Indeed. It makes me curious (and you don't have to answer if you don't want): Denise - would you feel comfortable sharing why this resources is important to you?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/725977#Comment_725977

Lew, I feel perfectly comfortable, but maybe not others. First, I'm a check-the-text person. If the text is clear, run with it. If not, then don't invent layers of rationalizing interpretations; simply recognize 'don't know'. Surprisingly the only impact is on the folks that insist they do know.

Text-wise, I'm convinced the secondary translations are closer to the original, than the greek amalgam, that began showing up a few centuries back, and now is encased in rule-sets. I came to that conclusion, watching how the greek guys responded to 'don't know' when the secondaries suggest alternative routes. The greek guys almost uniformly track a theology. And if you look at Metzger, he admits it when he's in a 50-50 situation (as does Carson).

Antioch Bible is the first to have a decently reliable OT translation, plus they contrast idiomatic use vs literal in the syriac. My fav of course is the Old Syriac, but maybe just next year, a cave will have a stack of 1st century originals!

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/725993#Comment_725993

This early Syriac translation is also of interest for NT studies because Jesus's first language was Aramaic... and ancient Aramaic and ancient Syriac are practically the same language, with a different alphabet! So, these ancient Syriac translations can at times help shed light on what Jesus might have actually said in the original Aramaic, and different nuances that might have had, compared to the Greek of the NT.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/725993#Comment_725993

I'm a check-the-text person.

I'm curious Denise. Do you read ancient Syriac is the English translation what you are primarily comparing? I'd love to be able to read Syriac but I have enough trouble keeping up with Greek and stumbling along with Hebrew.

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/725993#Comment_725993

Text-wise, I'm convinced the secondary translations are closer to the original

Yeah, Denise. I'm pretty aware of the text-critical issues. I was particularly interested in your personal interest, which you answered perfectly. Thank you!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/726018#Comment_726018

Bruce, I forgot her name here on the forum ... I call her the syriac lady! .... but she's a serious syriac person. I don't get too excited with syriac nor am I remotely expert. Syriac is heavily layered, plus from what I understand, it's very geographical, more so than greek or latin. So, expertise is critical.

I look more at the 'glue' in the sentences. Plus which word was selected to translate. Neural networks taught me to watch the glue ... the connectives that require interpretation. And effectively, 2nd generation translations, like syriac or coptic are instant and early commentaries on what they thought the original meant. Finally, when you shift languages, the first to show issues are the connectives ... what I call the glue. Greek guys kind of shrug it off.

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/726050#Comment_726050

Greek guys kind of shrug it off.

Careful! I'm a Greek guy! [:D]

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/726053#Comment_726053

I've had too much time to sort of think about this and not enough time to really think about this, but I am now tempted to learn a bit of Syriac -- at least enough to hurt myself. I really don't have time for this since improving my Aramaic and Latin were higher on my language "to do" list. Thanks a heap, Denise! [:P]

[:)]

I would probably never justify myself buying the Antioch Bible. However, it would be nice to take advantage of the Syriac resources I already have in Logos, and understand their text-critical contribution. But, as Bruce said, let us know how it works for you.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/726066#Comment_726066

You'll love it. It's a much softer language, plus if you like the OT, it zips backward into Persia and thense Assyrean writings. Sort of the heart of the jewish travail.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/726066#Comment_726066

I look more at the 'glue' in the sentences. Plus which word was selected to translate. Neural networks taught me to watch the glue ... the connectives that require interpretation. And effectively, 2nd generation translations, like syriac or coptic are instant and early commentaries on what they thought the original meant. Finally, when you shift languages, the first to show issues are the connectives ... what I call the glue. Greek guys kind of shrug it off.

Thanks Denise. I appreciate your explanation.

but I am now tempted to learn a bit of Syriac -- at least enough to hurt myself.

I think a lot of us know enough about some languages to really hurt ourselves. [:P]

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/726153#Comment_726153

I think a lot of us know enough about some languages to really hurt ourselves.

I've hurt myself enough times using English. And, unfortunately, some others, too, along the way. [:$]

Steve Maling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/726181#Comment_726181

Well, Lew, I estimate approximately 105.98% of us "pastor types" done that![:(]

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/725999#Comment_725999

The https://www.logos.com/product/40881/introductory-syriac-method-and-manual just came from the pre-pub grill, so I can start deciphering the Syriac what I have. I have not intentionally collected any Syriac resources, but I have four.

So, these ancient Syriac translations can at times help shed light on what Jesus might have actually said in the original Aramaic,

If I have understood correctly, most scholars think that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the Gospels were written in Greek, and the Syriac is a sort of back-translation to Aramaic. I could also fancy that some sayings were not back-translated but came directly from Aramaic tradition or texts. Could you suggest a book or other publication dealing with this?

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/726474#Comment_726474

Veli, this may not be exactly what you're asking for, but the work of Joachim Jeremias (some available for Logos) dealt with what he concluded were the original Aramaic words of Jesus.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/726546#Comment_726546

Joachim Jeremias (some available for Logos) dealt with what he concluded were the original Aramaic words of Jesus.

Ok, thanks Lew, this is a good starting point!