English-Greek-Hebrew Triglots

[Adelphos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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", 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.