English-Greek-Hebrew Triglots

[ISalzman]

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]

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

That is exactly what I'm hoping to achieve.

[ISalzman]

Good stuff. Thanks.

[Adelphos]

Good stuff. Thanks.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hi Scott,

I found the following quote at http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...ticles/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.