PDA

View Full Version : Identity of the DLZ database



bkMitchell
09-13-2010, 11:42 PM
DLZ Database


The DLZ database was entered and complied thanks to the work of Ewan MacLeod and was first hosted on the Bibleworks blog (http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/) (as an user created add on module) before it was finally included in BibleWorks at the release of Bibleworks version 8. A special thanks is due to Mr. Ewan MacLeod who did the hard work and to Mr. Micheal Handel who generously allowed it to be hosted on the Bibleworks blog.



Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament database included in Bibleworks matches closely with:


(a) 1937 edition printed in Great Britain which can be found in scanned and converted to PDF here:http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/nthebrew/hebrewnt.html
(I am guessing this one is that published by the British and Foreign Bible Society)

(b) "the Booklet Bridge/ Kirjasilta: Hyviš kristillisiš kirjasia" at (http://www.kirjasilta.net/ha-berit/)

However, the DLZ is different from edition published by the:
(a) Trinitarian Bible Society edition
(b) The Society For Distributing Hebrew Scriptures

In the printed edition of 1937 the is an * (asterisk) by the word 'asher / אֲשֶׁר' to indicated that word is either not attested or has been reconstructed. However, in the more commonly found edition printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society has Elohim in accordance with the Traditional received text.


the DLZ database it reads:

וּבְוַדָּי גָּדוֹל סוֹד הַחֲסִידוּת אֲשֶׁר נִגְלָה בַבָּשָׂר נִצְדַּק בָּרוּחַ נִרְאָה לַמַּלְאָכִים הוּגַּד בַּגּוֹיִם נִתְקַבֵּל בֶּאֱמוּנָה בָּעוֹלָם נַעֲלָה בְּכָבוֹד׃




the Trinitarian Bible Society's Hebrew NT 1966, 1998 reads


וּבְוַדָּי גָּדוֹל סוֹד הַחֲסִידוּת אֱלֹהִים נִגְלָה בַבָּשָׂר נִצְדַּק בָּרוּחַ נִרְאָה לַמַּלְאָכִים הוּגַּד בַּגּוֹיִם נִתְקַבֵּל בֶּאֱמוּנָה בָּעוֹלָם נַעֲלָה בְּכָבוֹד׃



What one might ask is the reason for these differences?

Well, lest start with the database the version info for the DLZ isn't clear on what specific printed edition was used for comparison but it is likely to be one published by the British and Foreign Bible society.

Delitzsch writes

"May years I sought for a publisher of the whole, who would take upon himself the expense of publishing and provide for its circulation. At last the British and Foreign Bible Society lent be its helpful hand, and having obtained such a powerful and generous protection, the new translation went through the press and forthwith enjoyed God's wonderful blessing. It was completed in the spring of 1877.

The text, followed there, is substantially that of the Sinaitic codex , with the principal variations of the Textus Receptus in brackets. But, I soon felt, that a text formed by myself alone could not be exempt from individual arbitrariness, and that it was more natural to base the translation on the Textus receptus and to supplement it with the critical remarks. After half a year a second edition become necessary, which I based on these principles; it bears the date of 1878."

(Page n7 see the PDF here: http://www.archive.org/stream/hebrewnewtestame00deli#page/n7/mode/2up)

Lampide say's something similar but a little different:

"Since no publisher could be found in Germany to finance a complete edition of the New Testament in Hebrew, Delitzsch turned to the British and Foreign Bible Society, which agreed after some hesitation to sponsor it. The first edition, which appeared in London in 1877, was based largely on the Codex Sinaiticus. The second edition followed in 1878, and at the request of the conservative society it was corrected to the Greek Texus Receptus."(Pinchas E, Lampide Hebrew in Church; page 85)



Notice Lampide claims:
(1) The British and Foreign Bible Society hesitated to print the Hebrew NT
(2) That the conservative society coerced Franz Delitzsch into 'correcting' his text to the TR.


Delitzsch, on the other hand says nothing of being coerced, but rather states he felt convicted, and that soon it was necessarily to issue that 2nd edition based on the principles he had been convicted to follow.

jimofbentley
09-14-2010, 02:28 AM
Thank you very much for the link to this book.

This work makes certain notable points:

1) Nowhere does Delitzsch mention the Trinitarian Bible Society. Everywhere through his introduction he gives the impression that each succeeding edition of his New Testament translation is that of the British and Foreign Bible Society. He gives no indication that he has "moved on" to another publisher.

2) The title of this small volume is The Hebrew New Testament of the British and Foreign Bible Society, clearly indicating that it was still being published by the British and Foreign Bible Society and had not yet been taken over by another Publishing Firm (either the Trinitarian Bible Society or the Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures).

3) Delitzsch moved from using the "Sinaitic codex" to that of the Textus Receptus in order to avoid personal bias and "arbitrariness". That he was not fully convinced of the "reliabilty" of the Textus Receptus may be indicated by his desire to include "critical remarks", which I assume means that he would give reasons why he deviated from the Textus Receptus in certain points.

If then Delitzsch continued with the B&FBS, and the 1937 edition bkMitchell linked to reflects the Bible Society's version, is it possible that it was the Trinitarian Bible Society which made changes to Delitzsch to conform Delitzsch to the Textus Receptus (and to their own views?), and thus took Delitzsch away from what he had originally translated?

bkMitchell
09-14-2010, 10:46 AM
jimofbentley,

Thank you for your thought provoking reply.
At, the end of which you asked:


If then Delitzsch continued with the B&FBS, and the 1937 edition bkMitchell linked to reflects the Bible Society's version, is it possible that it was the Trinitarian Bible Society which made changes to Delitzsch to conform Delitzsch to the Textus Receptus (and to their own views?), and thus took Delitzsch away from what he had originally translated?

According to an article (Link) (http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/heb.asp) by Debra E. Anderson found on the Trinitarian Bible Society's web site they(the TBS) did not start printing Delitzsch till after 1963. The article also states that "at the request of the BFBS, Delitzsch revised this translation in order to bring it into conformity to theTextus Receptus." And, that was done for the second edition of 1878. Thus, the revisions were introduced about 85 years before the first TBS edition ever saw the light of day.

So, it would appear that the BFBS is responsible for the changes made to bring the Hebrew NT in conformity with the TR. The Trinitrian Bible society(TBS) being aware of those changes adopted the text as their own in 1963.

Now, allow me to pose some questions of my own:

(1a)Is possible then that two different editions of Franz Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament were simultaneously put into circulation by the same publisher; the British and Foreign Bible Society?

(1b)Why would the British and Foreign Bible Society request the Hebrew NT to be revised to comply with the TR and then continue to publish the original edition at the same time?

(2)Or, Is it possible that another publishing house in Britain adopted the original printing and continued to publish it or re-issue it? Currently, I have no evidence for that position, but it is possible.

Either way your theory of there being
... 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"...Seems to be logical.

Adelphos
09-14-2010, 01:00 PM
I don't know how accurate some of that information is, especially I have an edtion that antedates the Trinitarian editions, but either way, here's the issue once again --

pedigree, pedigree, pedigree.

What can be traced? What cannot?

The Keran/DLZ -- for the DLZ in BibleWorks is identical to the Keren database in the passages I've spot checked -- the Keran/DLZ has no pedigree.

As has been the consensus by knowledgeable people in this matter, the Keren therefore has no legitimate claim to be called a Delitzsch.

Produce the pedigree.

Adelphos
09-14-2010, 03:41 PM
The copyright information in the DLZ database is also grossly inaccurate.

It first states that the Delitzsch was translated from the 1624 Elzevir Greek text and was republished with only minor revisions.

In the first place, the DLZ does not even REMOTELY conform to the 1624 Elzevir Greek text, and secondly, the revisions in the DLZ are MAJOR AND NUMEROUS.

So the entire passage is grossly inaccurate and grossly misleading.

The copyright information also asserts that the DLZ text was proofread against a printed copy of Delitzsch's work.

Unless such a printed copy can be produced, that statement is yet another falsehood.

Where is this "printed" edition? Where can I find a copy of this "printed" edition?

Even if one could be produced, can it be traced with a legitimate pedigree to Deliztch?

To assert that the current DLZ is based on the Elzevir 1624 text with only minor revisions is patently false.

If a "printed" copy that matches the DLZ cannot be produced, that statement is also patently false.

If a "printed" copy that matches the DLZ can be produced, yet its pedigree cannot be established, then calling it a "Delitzsch" translation is also patently false.

bkMitchell
09-14-2010, 10:00 PM
...the issue once again --

pedigree, pedigree, pedigree.

What can be traced? What cannot?

Precisely! This is exactly what this tread is about: Facts and Data. We, have established so far(Or at least all the sources I have seen are in agreement with these points):

(1)The BFBS published one edition based on the Sinaitic codex
(2)The BFBS published at least 10 editions in accordance with the Textus Recptus.
(3)Those 10 editions were done during the life time of Delitzsch and under his direct supervision.
(3)The TBS adopted the text because of it's fidelity to the TR continued the tradition from the 1960's to this very day

(4)The DLZ database differs from majority namely the:


(a) 10 editions of British and Foreign Bible Society
(b) 1966 & 1998 editions of the TBS
(c) editions of The Society For Distributing Hebrew Scriptures


(5) The DLZ database resembles the (Non-Continuity Editions?):

(a) printed edition 1937 which can be found in scanned and converted to PDF here:http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/.../hebrewnt.html (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/nthebrew/hebrewnt.html) (Publisher unknown)

(b) "the Booklet Bridge/ Kirjasilta: Hyviš kristillisiš kirjasia" Edition (http://www.kirjasilta.net/ha-berit/)


Unanswered Questions:
(1) What printed edition was used for the proofing of the DLZ?
(2) Who printed the 1937 edition and why?
(3) Why were there two editions based on different Greek Texts published around the same time?

(4a)Is possible then that two different editions of Franz Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament were simultaneously put into circulation by the same publisher; the British and Foreign Bible Society?

(4b)If so why would the British and Foreign Bible Society request the Hebrew NT to be revised to comply with the TR and then continue to publish the original edition at the same time?

(5)Or, Is it possible that another publishing house in Britain adopted the original printing and continued to publish it or re-issue it? Currently, I have no evidence for that position, but it is possible.

Adelphos
09-14-2010, 10:33 PM
I think we have enough information at this point. If a person can't see the problems with what has already been established, then further data would not make a difference.

I stand firmly behind the consensus held by people I've consulted who are knowledgeable of this issue, such as The Society For Distributing Hebrew Literature, and others, all of whom maintain that the Keran edition, which the DLZ appears to be based upon, cannot legitimately be called a Delitzsch translation.

As I said, the exact same differences would not be tolerated with an English translation, especially without a verifiable provenance and a legitimate pedigree.

And the current copyright information for the DLZ simply isn't true, at least the implications of it, for it implies that the DLZ conforms to that information, such as minor changes, and as I also said, that is patently false.

Enough said.

bkMitchell
10-01-2010, 12:53 AM
Some final words...



The DLZ database was entered and complied thanks to the work of Ewan MacLeod and was first hosted on the Bibleworks blog (http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/) (as an user created add on module) before it was finally included in BibleWorks at the release of Bibleworks version 8. A special thanks is due to Mr. Ewan MacLeod who did the hard work and to Mr. Micheal Handel who generously allowed it to be hosted on the Bibleworks blog for many years.

And, a new post from the Bibleworks blog:



New Version - Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament (http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/?p=641)
Written by Michael Hanel on September 9th, 2010

Although BibleWorks already contains a version of Franz Julius Delitzsch’s translation of the Greek New Testament into Hebrew (DLZ), there was a concern among some users that the version being used in BibleWorks did not correspond to any of the printed editions, so one BibleWorks user set out to make corrections to the text in order to bring it back into conformity with older print editions...
...Thanks to Scott Jones for providing this version.
Grace and Peace