PDA

View Full Version : English-Greek-Hebrew Triglots



Adelphos
09-02-2010, 10:45 PM
I've been in the process of creating English-Greek-Hebrew Triglots in Adobe PDF format when I have a little free time. So far I've compiled nine of them, and will add others as I get time.

If interested, you can find them under Bible Tools at my website.

Adelphos
09-03-2010, 12:03 PM
I have suspended the triglot files temporarily as I am going to change all the Hebrew to DLZ.

I originally used the HNT because it stated that it had been revised in 1999 to conform to the TR, and I just took them at their word, but now that I have actually read some portions of the HNT, I must say that I hate the translation. The DLZ, in my opinion, is a far better translation, at least in the comparison passages I have gone over.

I was going to email the HNT folks to make sure I had permission to post their entire work in my triglot format, but that is not necessary now.

My own printed Hebrew NT is different from both DLZ and HNT, so I never really bothered reading either of them in BW before, and I would have used the text from my own printed edition, but I can't find the text of my printed edition anywhere online.

In any case, until I get all the HNT replaced with DLZ, the page will be unavailable, and I'll post back here when I get it all done.

Adelphos
09-03-2010, 02:30 PM
Okay, it's open again. I got one up, more to follow. Just keep checking, as I will continue to add new ones after I all the others redone.

ISalzman
09-03-2010, 04:46 PM
Nice job, Scott! I recognize the Davka David font anywhere!

By the way, what version is your print edition of the Hebrew NT, since it's different than HNT and DLZ? I'd be curious to know what is written on the inside cover (date of publication, where published, publisher, etc.). I gather it follows the TR?

Adelphos
09-03-2010, 05:06 PM
Nice job, Scott! I recognize the Davka David font anywhere!

By the way, what version is your print edition of the Hebrew NT, since it's different than HNT and DLZ? I'd be curious to know what is written on the inside cover (date of publication, where published, publisher, etc.). I gather it follows the TR?

Hi Irving --

This has had me stumped for years. I had this Hebrew-English NT specially leather bound, so I have used it as my main Hebrew NT over the years, but I have never been able to exactly isolate its text. Here is what it says --

****************************************
The New Testament In Hebrew And English

The Society For Distributing Hebrew Scriptures

1 Rectory Lane
Edgware, Middlesex, England, UK
and
P.O. Box 839
Forest Falls, CA 92339-0839, U.S.A.

Printed in Great Britain at the
University Press, Cambridge
****************************************

I have yet to find any online text whatsoever that matches this one, so I don't really know what to make of it. It's closer to the DLZ in the passages I've checked, but there are some places where it does not match either the DLZ or the HNT.

Anyway, as I've been reading the DZL, I may actually get a printed edition of that one and have it leather bound as well. I like the flavor of it, and I firmly believe that Deissman was wrong about biblical languages not being special. :cool:

I should also mention that my printed edition is based on the Textus Receptus.

ISalzman
09-03-2010, 06:09 PM
Scott,

That's interesting. I've had contact with them for years (The Society for DHS). I have occasional contact with the man that used to serve as the secretary of the American Branch of the Society). The way he explained it to me was this: Originally, they only used and distributed Delitzsch's Hebrew NT. Later, they did a second version (Salkinson-Ginzburg [HNT]). I still think they distribute more of the Delitzschs. But from what they say, Delitzsch reflects more of a biblical Hebrew translation. On the other hand, Salkinson-Ginzburg uses more of a rabbinic (Mishnaic) Hebrew. But I believe they both work off the TR. Happy Labor Day.

Adelphos
09-03-2010, 06:14 PM
Scott,

That's interesting. I've had contact with them for years (The Society for DHS). I have occasional contact with the man that used to serve as the secretary of the American Branch of the Society). The way he explained it to me was this: Originally, they only used and distributed Delitzsch's Hebrew NT. Later, they did a second version (Salkinson-Ginzburg [HNT]). I still think they distribute more of the Delitzschs. But from what they say, Delitzsch reflects more of a biblical Hebrew translation. On the other hand, Salkinson-Ginzburg uses more of a rabbinic (Mishnaic) Hebrew. But I believe they both work off the TR. Happy Labor Day.

My printed edition is clearly based on the Delitzsch, now that I've had a chance to read some of the Delitzsch passages, but there are still many minor differences throughout.

For example, in John 1:2, the DLZ you have in BW has et ha elohim at the end of the verse, whereas my printed edition has etsel ha elohim.

As I say, there are numerous minor differences of this nature throughout, and I've never been able to find the exact text of my printed edition online.

And backatcha on happy labor day. Better yet, get consecrated for the Feast of Trumpets, for it is just around the corner, and this is especially a time when we must look up and rejoice, for our redemption in Jesus Christ draweth nigh.

ISalzman
09-03-2010, 06:38 PM
My printed edition is clearly based on the Delitzsch, now that I've had a chance to read some of the Delitzsch passages, but there are still many minor differences throughout.

For example, in John 1:2, the DLZ you have in BW has et ha elohim at the end of the verse, whereas my printed edition has etsel ha elohim.

As I say, there are numerous minor differences of this nature throughout, and I've never been able to find the exact text of my printed edition online.


I'm completely mystified. I'd love to be able to understand the differences between the two Hebrew texts, but I guess we're left wondering for now. I wonder if there are/were several versions of Delitzsch in circulation? You're not the first that has mentioned this to me. In your example above, I like the BW translation better. Et more closely resembles and translates pros, "with." Etsel is probably better translated "by" or "near."



And backatcha on happy labor day. Better yet, get consecrated for the Feast of Trumpets, for it is just around the corner, and this is especially a time when we must look up and rejoice, for our redemption in Jesus Christ draweth nigh.

Amen. Looking for the trumpet/the last trump.

Adelphos
09-03-2010, 06:53 PM
That's what makes horseracing, because I like etsel better, as it follows the context of verse 1 where it says the Word was with God (et), and so etsel builds on that and also refers us immediately back to Proverbs 8:30 with the same teaching and the same word. Of course, the whole passage begins in Proverbs 8:22, referring specifically to Jesus Christ the Word. I don't know that Delitzsch had Proverbs 8:30 in mind here, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he did, because the two verses are two peas in a pod.

But as I said, that's what makes horseracing.

Adelphos
09-04-2010, 03:21 PM
Well, I've discovered a little more. The DLZ which is in BW is definitely an edited text, as there are some significant differences. The original DLZ, which I have in my printed edition, is the DLZ that Delitzsch actually produced.

The one in BW is not only an edited version, but in my opinion is a corrupt one as well.

For example, in 1 Timothy 3:16, the original DLZ, which is the one in my printed edition, has elohim was manifested in the flesh.

The corrupt DLZ in BW has replaced elohim with asher to conform to the Critical Text.

So I have corrected it back to elohim in my 1 Timothy triglot.

In future, I will have to check the other passages as well. I see that the BW DLZ has correctly retained the phrase by Jesus Christ in Ephesians 3:9, so the DLZ in BW is really nothing but a corrupt hybrid.

Adelphos
09-04-2010, 06:26 PM
After even a little more investigation, as far as I can tell, there is NO printed text of Delitzsch that has asher in 1 Timothy 3:16. Every printed text that I know about has elohim, so I'm almost certain that this is a database error. I'm reporting it as such to BW.

ISalzman
09-04-2010, 08:48 PM
Here's the database/version info for DLZ, as provided in BibleWorks:

DLZ - Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament

The Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament was translated from the Elzevir 1624 Received Greek Text by the 19th century German scholar Franz Julius Delitzsch (1813 to 1890), co-author of the well-known multi-volume Keil and Delitzsch Commentary of the Old Testament. Delitzsch's New Testament was first published in 1877. Since the first publication his work has been republished with only minor revisions, and it has maintained its literal style for the Hebrew of Delitzsch's day. This was before Modern Hebrew was created, and consequently the Hebrew leans heavily on the Tanakh for vocabulary, words and expressions. Students of the Tanakh should therefore be able to understand Delitzsch's translation without much difficulty.

The current text was entered by Ewan MacLeod and proofread against a printed copy of Delitzsch's work. As Delitzsch's work goes back to 1877, it is now in the public domain.

---------------------------------

By the way, I must say that I love the Delitzsch Hebrew NT. It is a wonderful translation. The man knew his Hebrew. We are indebted to him to this day.

bkMitchell
09-04-2010, 09:23 PM
When speaking of Franz Delitzsch Hebrew NT one must keep in mind that there is more than one version.



Franz Delitzsch and Julius Furst
1870 Romans (Delitzsch was about 57 years old)


1877 1st London edition based on codex Sinaiticus
1878 2nd edition edited to become closer to the Textus Receptus
1880 3rd edition
1882 4th edition


Franz Delitzsch and J. J. Kohan
1883 5th edition
1885 6th edition
1886 7th edition
1888 8th edition
1889 9th edition
1890 10th edition


Dalman's (aramaic) revision of Franz Delitzsch Hebrew NT
1892 11th edition
12th, 13th, and 14th edition


The Trinitarian Bible Society is currently considering a new revision as well.

Adelphos
09-04-2010, 10:06 PM
Thanks, Brian. I have researched it as best I could. I have since emailed them to ask for clarification.

The reason I suspect that the online version may not be accurate is because it follows the Textus Receptus phrases but sometimes misses the Textus Receptus single words, such as in 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 10:9, and so forth.

This leads me to believe that whoever first put the text into electronic format could easily perceive when there were differences in the phrases, but perhaps was not so careful about the words, and his master was probably a text based on the Critical Text to begin with. Thus, he just didn't perceive the differences in single words, whereas the phrases were easy to see.

After all, why create a complete hybrid, which is what this online edition is???

In any case, I hope the publisher can clear this up for us.

In the meantime, I am continuing to put the BW DLZ text into my triglots, but I am making the necessary emendations where I see fit to conform to both the Textus Receptus and Delitzsch, for the fact is, Delitzsch was very aware of these variants, and he utterly rejected them in the versions he actually produced and had control over.

Accordingly, if these changes are legitimate, such as the change in 1 Timothy 3:16, then whoever made them prostituted Delitzsch, and I very much doubt he would approve.

Either way, the current edition in BW is wholly untrustworthy without careful scrutiny. It is, as I said, nothing but a hybrid.

bkMitchell
09-04-2010, 10:29 PM
...
from what they say, Delitzsch reflects more of a biblical Hebrew translation. On the other hand, Salkinson-Ginzburg uses more of a rabbinic (Mishnaic) Hebrew...


(1)That is in direct contradiction with Salkinson's own words on the subject where he claims to follow a pure Biblical style.
See, Salkinson's letter to Delitzsch as quoted in:
Franz Delitzsch, "critical observations on my Hebrew New Tesament” 3rd eiditon (1889)
It can be found here in PDF format:
http://vineofdavid.org/remnant_repository/franz_delitzsch/

(2)Salkinson version is that of the Hasaklah/Masklim style of Hebrew, and in that light it would be highly strange that it would be close to Mishnaic. Remmber, Salkinson as well as others in the Hasaklah rejected Rabbinic Hebrew in favor of a more 'biblical style'. However, in their zeal to return to a pure Biblical Hebrew they created something quite different. The ram-shacked the Tanach/OT vocab and express and then applied them in ways foreign to the Tanach/OT.
see, Hebrew in the Church by Pinchas E Lapide pages 92-94 and page 96. (link) (http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Church-Foundations-Jewish-Christian-Dialogue/dp/0802849172/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283673715&sr=8-3)

(2) Franz Delitzsch HT endures, because, it uses the grammar of the Pentateuch narratives in the narrative sections of the gospels, but in the letters of Paul it use Mishnic Hebrew terms and expressions. Basically, Franz was far more sensitive to genre than Salkinson and the overall style of Franz Hebrew NT is timeless as long as it's reader is literate in the Pentateuch, and Mishnah. Franz Delitzsch is quite similar to the Hebrew style of Rambam.

(3) Also, it should be noted that Franz critically reviewed almost every Hebrew NT translation up to his time including the various editions of Salkinson. He was able learn from their mistakes and borrow from them. In one of his letters he mentions this as well. As, you can see from my previous post He made more than a few revisions.

bkMitchell
09-04-2010, 10:31 PM
Adelphos,

Do, you mean this online version?:


http://www.kirjasilta.net/ha-berit/

Adelphos
09-04-2010, 10:39 PM
Adelphos,

Do, you mean this online version?:


http://www.kirjasilta.net/ha-berit/


I scanned that version earlier today and I found -- in the places I checked -- that it's the same as the BW version.

Now then, if Delitzsch made the changes in 1 Timothy 3:16 to asher before he died, then it seems there should be a printed edition to match that. If not, then somebody put asher in there against Delitzsch's explicit desire, for as I said, Delitzsch was very much aware of all the variants.

I find it hard to believe that Delitzsch would remove elohim in the most doctrinally signifcant passage of Scriptue in all the Word of God, and in fact, the most doctrinally significant statement in the universe, while still leaving all the other Textus Receptus readings in place.

That would make no sense whatsoever, and until somebody can show me that he himself did, in fact, replace elohim with asher, I'll still believe it to be incredulous.

Adelphos
09-04-2010, 11:18 PM
I just further found a copyright date in my printed edition hidden obscurely in the very back of the book, and it's 1966. Since my text is clearly based on one of the earlier versions of Delitzsch, but which version was still being reprinted after 1966, then it further lends credence to the changes in 1 Timothy 3:16 and other places as being relatively recent.

As I say, I find it hard to believe that Delitzsch would have made these changes.

Either way, the edition I have is outstanding. Too bad it's not the one in electronic format.

bkMitchell
09-05-2010, 12:25 AM
I just further found a copyright date in my printed edition hidden obscurely in the very back of the book, and it's 1966.

The most recent edition I have is dated 1998 and notes that it was first printed in 1966. It also retains 'Elohim' in 1 Timothy 3:1. For a while, Oxford press also printed Franz Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament.

Adelphos
09-05-2010, 11:20 AM
The most recent edition I have is dated 1998 and notes that it was first printed in 1966. It also retains 'Elohim' in 1 Timothy 3:1. For a while, Oxford press also printed Franz Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament.

Very, very interesting, because I'm sure my copy is at least twenty or twenty-five years old. But since your copy is 1998 and it retains the proper elohim in 1 Timothy 3:16, this almost certainly means that the change is very recent, and may in fact be an error in the online edition.

I will await clarification from the publisher. Perhaps they will have a true electronic version of Delitzsch that they will allow us to put online.

ISalzman
09-05-2010, 12:30 PM
Very, very interesting, because I'm sure my copy is at least twenty or twenty-five years old. But since your copy is 1998 and it retains the proper elohim in 1 Timothy 3:16, this almost certainly means that the change is very recent, and may in fact be an error in the online edition.

I will await clarification from the publisher. Perhaps they will have a true electronic version of Delitzsch that they will allow us to put online.

Scott, do you think they would make a truer electronic version available to BibleWorks?

Adelphos
09-05-2010, 12:43 PM
Scott, do you think they would make a truer electronic version available to BibleWorks?

That is exactly what I'm hoping to achieve.

ISalzman
09-05-2010, 12:47 PM
Good stuff. Thanks.

Adelphos
09-05-2010, 01:52 PM
Good stuff. Thanks.

You're welcome. At least you and me and Brian will benefit from it! :cool:

The more I go through it, the more I get the feeling that it just don't make sense. For example, I am nearing completion of my Hebrews triglot, and yet the online text, as well as my printed edtion, follows the TR and the translation of the King Jame Bible in the several passages of Hebrews.

Take Hebrews 11:11. The Textus Receptus and the KJB give Sarah the proper credit for faith, whereas the Critical Text and some of the the modern translations, NET, NIV, etc., deny Sarah this faith, although I must say that my printed Delitzsch edition is much stronger and clearer than the DLZ online edition here, which you will be able to see when I post my Hebrews triglot, for I have altered this verse to the printed edition, as well as a few others in this book.

Well, the DLZ correctly follows the TR and the KJB here. Same with Hebrews 2:16, and so on.

Which is to say, the only places that have been doctrinally changed, as far as I have investigated so far, are those places where a single word is altered, such as 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 10:9, et cetera.

So it appears as if somebody monkeyed around with the text, either at the source, or when somebody turned it into an electronic format.

Time will tell, as hopefully the publisher will clear this up for us.

ISalzman
09-05-2010, 02:12 PM
Thanks for looking into this Scott and for all your diligence!

I think that DLZ may just be one of the most under-appreciated resources in BW. In my mind, the inter-biblical allusions that the NT authors make to the OT jump off the page in the DLZ. DLZ is a gem of a database and a great study tool. Not to mention, there is a real beauty in reading the NT in Hebrew. But I guess people could call me biased in that regard. I love the Hebrew language and never tire of it.

Adelphos
09-06-2010, 11:08 AM
No joy, I'm afraid. Here is the email I received back from the publishers, the initial part concerning Aleph and B of which I doubt is accurate...

*************************************
Thank you for your enquiry about the Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament. I
am sorry we cannot help you in your enquiry and at present, I cannot
direct you to where you might find the answer to your query.

The following may be helpful. Delitzsch first translated the New
Testament into Hebrew in 1877 from the text of Codex 'Aleph',
corrected by Codex B and afterwards conformed in the main to the
Textus Receptus. There have been numerous revisions by different
sources since then, the latest of which I believe is published in
Israel by Keren Ahavh Meshihit.

Whether one can say these revisions are according to 'Delitzsch' is
unclear, what now constitutes the Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament is
open to speculation. As far as we know, this is the current situation
regarding his New Testament.

Although probably not helpful at least this is the current situation.
*************************************

As I said, the printed edtion I have doesn't conform in the slightest to B or Aleph, and since I have collated these manuscripts, I ought to know.

As it stands now, it is clear that the editions that are available online are NOT true Delitzsch.

And there is no way that I'm going to spend the time and effort to produce the true Delitzsch unless we could get at least a dozen people to work on it together.

So, I will continue to conform my triglots to the printed edtion in the places I deem necessary.

But it seems I was EMMINENTLY CORRECT when I stated that somebody has been monkeying with the text and prostituting Delitzsch.

Adelphos
09-06-2010, 11:28 AM
I have since replied to them asking if they have a true Delitzsch in electronic format, and if so, if they would be willing to release it to me.

ISalzman
09-06-2010, 12:09 PM
Great question. That would be wonderful if they would be willing to release the electronic version to you (assuming they have one). Thanks for all your thorough diligence, Scott.

Adelphos
09-06-2010, 12:19 PM
Okay, here's the final reply, and it looks like the Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures agrees with me about the current online edition NOT being a true Delitzsch. Also note his reference to BibleWorks. It should be emphasized that in my previous email to him, I told him I was NOT affiliated with BibleWorks, but thought that they would be interested in including a truer edtion of Delitzsch if available, hence the reference to BibleWorks in the following (emphasis added by me)...

*****************************************
Dear Scott,

Thank you for your email. I am sorry we do not have any electronic
edition of the Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament and I am not sure in
which direction to point you to find it.

I also use BibleWorks and find it excellent, it meets most of my needs
for Bible study.

According to the 'Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy
Scripture' of 1903-1911 and published by the British and Foreign Bible
Society from their library, Delitzsch oversaw the revision of 11
edtions of his New Testament. here is the final comment in 1892: 'F.
Delitzsch had been making a final revision of his text when he died in
1890, a few hours after seeing the final sheet. The work was completed
by Gustaf Dalman, assisted by Isaac Cohn.'

The subsequent revisions by the Bible Society and others, including
Keren, cannot in my view rightly be attributed to Delitzsch, although
attempts to revise it continue to this day.

We may have other information in our own library but at the moment I
cannot locate it.

If we come across any other source of Delitzsch in electronic/digital
format, we will let you know.

With every good wish to your research and quest,

Eric Browning
*****************************************

So as I said before, the current DLZ is wholly untrustworthy without careful scrutiny.

jimofbentley
09-06-2010, 04:26 PM
Hi Scott,

I found the following quote at http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/heb.asp


"The British and Foreign Bible Society in 1873 commissioned Franz Delitzsch to prepare a translation of the New Testament in Hebrew. This translation, completed in 1877, was in a more literal style and was also made from the critical text of the Greek New Testament. The next year, at the request of the BFBS, Delitzsch revised this translation in order to bring it into conformity to the Textus Receptus."
If this is correct, it is possible that there are two strands of "Delitzsch" in circulation. One that reflects his original translation made according to a "critical text" and his revision made according to the "Textus Receptus". If this is the case, then both would be "correct according to Delitzsch", dependant upon whether the edition follows his original or his revised text.

This would explain the issues that you have raised.

Adelphos
09-06-2010, 04:59 PM
If this is correct, it is possible that there are two strands of "Delitzsch" in circulation. One that reflects his original translation made according to a "critical text" and his revision made according to the "Textus Receptus". If this is the case, then both would be "correct according to Delitzsch", dependant upon whether the edition follows his original or his revised text.

This would explain the issues that you have raised.

Thanks for that info, but I don't think it explains it, for the DLZ in BW and the Keran online edition is a hybrid.

Moreover, in the first place, there was no Critical Text in 1877, so the statement above is inaccurate on its very face. Westcott and Hort didn't produce the proto-Critical Text until 1881, although there were forrunners to the Critical Text by individuals, but none ever gained any real traction.

In the second place, if it was based on the Critical Text, it would not include so many Textus Receptus passages which the Critical Text omits, such as John 3:13, Ephesians 3:9, Ephesians 5:30, ad infinitum.

It is clear that Delitzsch had no use whatsoever for the text of Westcott and Hort, as he continuously and persistently adhered to the Textus Receptus.

Thus, as Eric Browing, the General Secretary for the Society of Distributing Hebrew Scriptures correctly noted, these later revisions, which have altered so much of what Delitzsch rigidly adhered to, cannot legitimately be called a Delitzsch translation, and that applies to the DLZ in BibleWorks as well.

As I said, Delitzsch was emminently aware of the variants and he rejected them outright.

It would be like me producing a Bible translation that became popular, and then somebody else coming along and changing words and phrases and attaching my name to it because of its popularity. That would be dishonest and unethical.

And that's exactly what the Karen edition and the DLZ in BibleWorks is.

Of course, I'm not claiming that BibleWorks is complicit, because they certainly are not. But whoever produced the text of the DLZ is, and again, I'm not referring to Ewan MacLeod who proofed the DLZ text for BibleWorks, but rather, I'm talking about the source of the text itself.

Adelphos
09-06-2010, 05:18 PM
In any case, as the title of this thread notes, you will find the Hebrew text in my triglots following the true Delitzsch in the contended passages. I certainly can't conform every word of the DLZ back to the true Delitzsch, but I can -- and will -- make sure the contended passages conform to the true Delitzsch.

Adelphos
09-09-2010, 08:13 PM
As a further update, after investigating as much as I can, it appears that there is NO printed edition in existence that matches the Keran/DLZ so-called Delitzsch edition of the Hebrew New Testament. Rather, the online Keran/DLZ appears to be a lone-ranger online edition emeded according to the sheers whims of its creator(s).

Personally, I feel very strongly that that disqualifies it utterly as a "Delitzsch" translation, especially since several of the passages that have been altered are doctrinal alterations, not merely linguistic alterations.

Moreover, these doctrinal alterations were rejected outright by Delitzsch himself.

I don't suspect I'll get my way on this, but I think BibleWorks ought to rename this to the "Keran" edition and completely remove the name "Delitzsch" from it altogether, as it has been intentionally altered doctrinally, not merely linguistically, and in complete opposition to what Delitzsch persistently produced when he was alive.

Adelphos
09-09-2010, 08:25 PM
I would also encourage BibleWorks to email Eric Browning, the General Secretary for the Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures and get his take on it. If you read the email from him that I posed earlier in this thread, I'll suspect you'll find him very much agreeing with me.

jimofbentley
09-10-2010, 05:52 AM
Scott,

Have you seen: The Hebrew New Testament Of The British And Foreign Bible Society (1883)?

It is available at Amazon and, according to the review, it appears to be the "notes or explanations regarding Delitzsch's translation of the New Testament" - but it does not contain the actual text of Delitzsch's translation.

Thought it might be of help to you in your project.

Adelphos
09-10-2010, 11:12 AM
I have seen a lot of info since I first investigated this, including some info that Brian emailed me last night, all of which confirms that what passes for Delitzsch's translation today in the Keran/DLZ, is NOT.

When I began this, I didn't even know that my own printed copy was even a Delitzsch. Since contacting The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures, and through other means, I have learned that my own printed copy is a true Delitzsch, one which Delitzsch in substance approved before he died.

I have learned that since he died there have been a number of attempts to alter his work and yet still attach his name to it, ostensibly because his translation was popular and had been considered faithful.

The real stickler is 1 Timothy 3:16. The alteration in the Keran/DLZ is a surgical strike to remove the Traditional Text reading in the most doctrinally significant passage in all the Word of God, an alteration which Delitzsch himself would abhor.

1 Timothy 3:16 has been the most sacrosanct and battled over verse in the history of the Bible, more than all other verses COMBINED, and it was very much a battleground in Delitzsch's day. In fact, ten years before Westcott & Hort produced their monstrosity, and at the same time when Delitzsch was at work on his translation, Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, noted the position of ALL orthodox Christians held throughout the centuries --

"God manifest in the flesh is the distinguishing doctrine of the religion of the Bible, without which it is a cold and lifeless corpse."

John Owen, two centuries before this, in line with the whole host of Reformers and Puritans, noted that the Arians had corrupted this passage, thus proving their own unregeneracy, for, as Owen so accurately noted, their is not an IOTA, not a DRAM, not a NANO-PARTICLE of GENUINE revelation by the Holy Spirit apart from the TRUTH that GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.

That just happens to be a truth that ALL, ALL, ALL who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit know, without exception. In fact, my article "The Blood Of Jesus Christ - Part I", (http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/blood_i_theo.htm)in the second section "He Entered In Alone", demonstrates how that passage takes us back to the very council of the Godhead in eternity past, nor am I the first to note this, as others before me -- Owen, Bunyan, et cetera -- have also discoursed upon this truth.

In short, GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH is the SOURCE of ALL of the Godhead's external manifestations, as has been well-known among regenerate orthodox Christians over the centuries, which is why, up until the mid-twentieth century, the Arian corruption as found in the Critical Text has been denied by all orthodox regenerate Christians.

There is no more important doctrine or statement in all the universe than GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.

The opponents of Jesus Christ's absolute deity have also known this, unlike the mass of feeble-minded professing Christians. That's why Westcott & Hort, neither of whom believed in the deity of Jesus Christ, threatened to resign if Vance Smith, the Unitarian, was not allowed to serve on the translation committee. And of course, they got their way, and together with the Unitarian they removed the Traditional Text reading and inserted the Arian corruption into their text, which has been followed studiously by every edition of the Critical Text since.

But even then, the orthodox refused to give up that one verse. In fact, there was no greater outcry against the Westcott & Hort edition than the Arian corruption that they had foisted back into 1 Timothy 3:16.

It has been said by many others before me that nobody indwelt by the Holy Spirit would surrender that verse, but that is not a debate I will enter here. My website makes it clear as to how I and the Jesus who indwells me feels about it.

However, I have said all this to say that all of this concerning Westcott and Hort was in the heyday of Delitzsch. If there was one variant among all other variants that Delitzsch would have been aware of, it was 1 Timothy 3:16. That verse was the touchstone of them all, even in Delitzsch's day.

Delitzsch was therefore EMINENTLY aware of this variant and he PERSISTENTLY refused to accept it, as he no doubt recognized it as THE MOST SIGNIFICANT VARIANT in all the Word of God.

In fact, I suspect that Delitzsch, like the rest of us, would have considered his entire work to be ruined if only that one verse had been altered. That's how significant that verse has been in the hearts of the orthodox over the centuries.

And now, when I go through the Keran/DLZ and see that that ONE WORD has been altered, while so much else of the Textus Receptus has been left intact, I can only assume that that was a surgical strike against the most significant verse in all the Bible, and a verse which in the Traditional Text was offensive to whomever altered it in the Keran/DLZ edition.

I also have to assume, since there is no variant in the universe that Delitzsch would have been more aware of, that he would abhor the change, and that he certainly would never allow his name to be attached to such a translation.

That's why I think, especially since there is NO TRUE DELITZSCH PRINTED EDITION to back up the Keran/DLZ, that either it ought to be changed in name, or the requisite changes to conform back to the printed edition ought to be made.

That's only fair. That's only honest. That's only ethical.

Adelphos
09-10-2010, 05:26 PM
There is a "Koren" publisher in Jerusalem, and a friend of mine recently brought me back one of their Bibles, which is only the Tanach in Hebrew. They don't make New Testaments, as far as I can discover.

There is no record that I can find of a Keran publisher who makes printed editions.

Thus, in essence and in fact, the DLZ in BibleWorks is based on a text with absolutely no provenance and no historical pedigree whatsoever.

On the other hand, there are printed, legitimate Delitzsch translations, printed by publishers of repute, with legitimate pedigrees.

It seems to me that an electronic Bible version purported to be based on a historical Bible translation, in order to be legitimate, ought to have a legitimate provenance, based on a legitimate printed edition, with a legitimate pedigree of that historical translation.

The DLZ fits nowhere in those categories.

And with that, I'll leave it there. I've found out what I wanted to know about the real Delitzsch translation.

ISalzman
09-10-2010, 05:58 PM
There is no record that I can find of a Keran publisher who makes printed editions.



I believe you may be looking for the following publisher in Jerusalem: Keren Ahavah Meshichit. I don't have an address, but they are a quality organization.

Adelphos
09-10-2010, 06:45 PM
I believe you may be looking for the following publisher in Jerusalem: Keren Ahavah Meshichit. I don't have an address, but they are a quality organization.

Yeah, I tried to find more on them and their productions, but as I said, I'm through with it at this point, except for making changes to my own true Delitzsch.

I have now acquried at least two or three different printed edtions of Delitzsch's work at this point, thanks to a few friends, and all three have the same text, and all three differ from the online edition. None match the DLZ.

Like I said, even if Keren Ahavat Meschichit produced the online edition, unless they can produce a legitimate pedigree going back to Delitzsch, then in my opinion they don't have the right to call it a Delitzsch, especially when they make doctrinal changes. That ain't right, I don't care how "quality" they may be.

In fact, there are few American publishers that the Christian world considers "quality" and they are anything but in the sense that they have no legitimate right to call themselves "Christian", but that's the world we live in.

I wonder what the outcry would be if somebody took the WH text in BibleWorks and altered it back to the Textus Receptus and then released as the Westcott-Hort Text?

Of course, it would not go over at all, and the reason it wouldn't go over is because it would be the exact opposite of what WH actually produced in the first place.

Same here.

And there are a number of small doctrinal changes as well, not just major ones, where the online edition sometimes follows the Critical Text and sometimes the Textus Receptus.

At best, the DLZ is a hybrid.

I'm probably the only one this matters to, and it ain't the end of the world, but it is quite revealing the lengths many people will go to today.

If the above "quality" publisher is responsible for these doctrinal changes, then they are either dishonest to publish under the name of "Delitzsch" or ignorant of the differences and the significance thereof.

ISalzman
09-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Like I said, even if Keren Ahavat Meschichit produced the online edition, unless they can produce a legitimate pedigree going back to Delitzsch, then in my opinion they don't have the right to call it a Delitzsch, especially when they make doctrinal changes. That ain't right, I don't care how "quality" they may be.

If the above "quality" publisher is responsible for these doctrinal changes, then they are either dishonest to publish under the name of "Delitzsch" or ignorant of the differences and the significance thereof.

I don't believe they ever published a digital, online version. And I think it's been years since they even published a print version. So I doubt they are the culprits if changes have since been made to Delitzsch. I had the privilege of meeting the founder of Keren Ahavah Meshichit many years ago and he is an amazing man of God. Studied at L'abri under Francis Schaeffer. He is not the kind of man that would unilaterally foist changes on a bible or on another man's work. I can vouch for his character. Very godly man and spiritually mature believer.

Adelphos
09-10-2010, 06:59 PM
Actually, just to clarify, I have a printed Delitzsch from The Society For Distributing Hebrew Scriptures, 1966, from The Trinitarian Bible Society, Canada, (1985, I think), and from another which has no information, probably due to lost pages.

Anyway, they all are legitimate Delitzsch's, all have an identical text, and all are different than the DLZ, which must be very, very, very recent indeed.

Adelphos
09-10-2010, 07:04 PM
I don't believe they ever published a digital, online version. And I think it's been years since they even published a print version. So I doubt they are the culprits if changes have since been made to Delitzsch. I had the privilege of meeting the founder of Keren Ahavah Meshichit many years ago and he is an amazing man of God. Studied at L'abri under Francis Schaeffer. He is not the kind of man that would unilaterally foist changes on a bible or on another man's work. I can vouch for his character. Very godly man and spiritually mature believer.

Well then I'm glad I said "if", and I certainly don't intend to demean him or any other individual. He sounds like a careful and thoughtful man.

In fact, if I ever find out who made the actual changes, I would certainly give him every opportunity to explain, and if he said he was willing to change back to the true Delitzsch in the relevant passages, that would be fine and dandy.

Quite frankly, though, if you can't tell, it just irks me when people play fast and loose with the Scriptures, and especially when they just assign labels left and right without any real concern for truth and accuracy.

I never thought that the DLZ in BW might not be an accurate Delitzsch until I started doing my triglots, and when I learned more and more, it stoked the fire hotter and hotter.

But as I said, I took a powder, so I'm okay now. :cool:

I'll just go about conforming my DLT till I get it to a decent pass.

ISalzman
09-10-2010, 07:09 PM
Quite frankly, though, if you can't tell, it just irks me when people play fast and loose with the Scriptures, and especially when they just assign labels left and right without any real concern for truth and accuracy.



Yes, I knew that about you, and I have only respect for you for that, Scott! May we all be as committed to God's unchangeable word.

Adelphos
09-10-2010, 08:00 PM
Thanks, Irving.

By the way, in my quest a friend gave me a really nifty little dark blue Hebrew New Testament. It's small enough to fit in your shirt pocked, but the font is big and clear and extremely easy to read. It says it came from the Trinitarian Bible Society.

Check this out --

http://www.tbs-sales.org/

Click on the "Hebrew" link and then I think the one on the left is the one I got, but it's hard to tell, but in case you or anyone else is interested, this is really a neat little book, for as I'm sure you know, Hebrew fonts aren't always easy to read.

In fact, the Bible that was given from Jerusalem has a font that is okay, but the font in this little pocket edtion I was given is really outstanding.

I might buy a few to give away.

EDIT: No, the one in the middle is the one I was given, I think. If it will fit in your pocket, that's the one.

ISalzman
09-10-2010, 08:56 PM
Hey Scott, I think the middle one is larger than pocket size. I have one of those. It is a terrific little bible. I know they make them in pocket size too, but I don't think this is the one. It's a shame they don't give the dimensions next to the picture. I suppose one could always e-mail them.

There is a great bible that is published by the Israel Bible Society. It is called the 'Diglot Bible' and has the entire bible in both Hebrew and English. I believe the NT uses the Delitzsch Hebrew NT and the English is that of the NKJV throughout. Are you okay with the NKJV, by the way?

Adelphos
09-10-2010, 09:25 PM
Hey Scott, I think the middle one is larger than pocket size. I have one of those. It is a terrific little bible. I know they make them in pocket size too, but I don't think this is the one. It's a shame they don't give the dimensions next to the picture. I suppose one could always e-mail them.

There is a great bible that is published by the Israel Bible Society. It is called the 'Diglot Bible' and has the entire bible in both Hebrew and English. I believe the NT uses the Delitzsch Hebrew NT and the English is that of the NKJV throughout. Are you okay with the NKJV, by the way?

No, the NKJV is based on the Critical Text in some places in the NT, and not entirely on the Masoretic Text in the OT, and there are numerous other problems as well, but I won't get into all those. In fact, that's another issue where I think it's not even legitimate to attach "KJV" to that translation, but as I said, I'm not going to get into it.

Some native Greeks I knew were originally excited about the NKJV years ago, but after they began to read it they became quickly disillusioned with it.

And of course, there is a reason that native Greeks who are fluent in English adhere with virtual unanimity to the KJV when they read the Bible in English, at least the native Greeks I've known, and it ain't all due just to text type. You can see these two articles for just the bare tip of the iceberg --

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm
http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/indictment_of_ignorance.htm

As an item of interest, for people who can't read Greek or Hebrew, here is a nice thing for them to know about the KJV, one that people who can't read Greek or Hebrew have really appreciated when I alerted them to it --

http://lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/did_you_know_1.htm

Anyway, I also have a nice leather-bound Delitzsch-KJV diglot that is my favorite. I also have a Textus Receptus Greek leather-bound NT, and it and my Hebrew-English diglot are both handy size and relatively thin, so I use those a lot.

But if you have the one I'm talking about, then you know how neat it is for such a small size. Its font is easier to read in many cases than many of the bigger books I've seen.

And I've just made several more corrections in the DLT, which I'll probably post tonight or tomorrow, but after that I'm done with this whole thing for awhile.

I'm glad you know what I'm talking about on that little Hebrew NT. That's the nicest little one I've seen.

Adelphos
09-11-2010, 10:42 AM
Just to put the nail in the coffin, the DLZ also contains the absurd, blasphemous corruption in Matthew 27:49 which says that Jesus was killed by someone with a spear instead of dying supernaturally as he promised, following B and Aleph, but nevertheless a blasphemy that not even the Critical Text was brazen enough to adopt.

Needless to say, the TRUE printed edition of Delitzsch knows nothing of this gross corruption.

Not to mention other lesser corruptions I've discovered just in just an hour or so of additional searching, several of them major.