Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: English-Greek-Hebrew Triglots

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default English-Greek-Hebrew Triglots

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    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?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    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.

    I should also mention that my printed edition is based on the Textus Receptus.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-03-2010 at 05:08 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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."


    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-03-2010 at 06:56 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •