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.
Originally Posted by jimofbentley
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.
Last edited by Adelphos; 09-06-2010 at 04:10 PM.