Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Final Disposition On Delitzsch New Testament

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

    Default Final Disposition On Delitzsch New Testament

    You can dress up a pig and call it a poodle, but eventually someone will find out about it.

    I know that BibleWorks makes every attempt to present as many legitimate translations as possible, and thus it was only natural when an online text masquerading as a Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament would become known to BibleWorks and its text thus made available.

    But now the hoax has been exposed.

    The Keran/DLZ has no verifiable provenance, and a NONEXISTENT pedigree. Anybody can make a translation and then throw it up on the internet and call it a poodle even when in reality it is a pig.

    Conversely -- and wholly unlike the Keran/DLZ-- the text in my printed edition of the Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament has an easily verifiable provenance and a traceable, legitimate pedigree qualifying it as a true, legitimate Delitzsch translation.

    The printed text in my edition goes back to a verifiable 1966, and from there to 1892, and from there to Delitzsch himself. Its text has EXACTLY been reproduced and published and sold by a number of reputed, well-established publishers OVER DECADES, including the The Society For Distributing Hebrew Scriptures, The Foreign Bible Socieity, The Trinitarian Bible Society, and so on.

    This text has been approved by Delitzsch personally, for it comes TRACEABLY and DIRECTLY from Delitzsch's own work, unlike the Keran/DLZ which was probably created in the late 90's or early 2000's from a base translation that consisted partly of Delitzsch and partly from who knows what else.

    In any case, the Keran/DLZ text has been altered both DOCTRINALLY and linguistically in so many places that it legally qualifies for a new copyright.

    The one thing it does NOT qualify for is to be called a Delitzsch translation. That would require a verifiable provenance and a LEGITIMATE pedigree.

    In no case does it have even the REMOTEST claim to ANY pedigree of Delitzsch WHATSOEVER, nor can its text be traced to Delitzsch, for the evidence that would be required to establish such tracing and such a pedigree, simply doesn't exist.

    It is so tedious trying to change the text in CCAT format that I have only concentrated on specific instances, ALL of which match the TRUE Delitzsch printed edtion exactly. Many of these are doctrinal changes, all of which conform to Delitzsch.

    You may set your text compare colors to compare between DLT and DLZ to see them. Some of the significant changes are, changes which Delitzsch himself would have been EMMINENTLY aware of --

    Matthew 24:36, Matthew 27:49, Luke 2:14, Luke 2:33, John 1:28, John 6:69, 1 Corinthians 10:9, Galatians 3:17, 1 Timothy 3:16, 2 Timothy 2:19, and others.

    Reams upon reams of changes could be made to bring the edtion into conformity with the pedigreed Delitzsch, but in addition to the tedious nature of such a work to begin with, the additional CCAT transliteration scheme makes it impossible.

    However, the changes noted above are the BARE MINIMUM that would be required to LEGITIMATELY call the translation a Delitzsch translation.

    Unlike the Keran/DLZ, the DLT I have produced at least has a pedigree in the doctrinal passages I have examined, doctrinal passages of which Delitzsch adhered to for ten editions of his work, if memory serves.

    Now that the facts are out, the DLZ ought to be renamed and ought to stop being called a Delitzsch translation.

    To anyone who disagrees with that I simply say -- produce the pedigree.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default boiling it down

    Points:

    (1) The DLZ database version info notes:

    ...Delitzsch's New Testament was first published in 1877. Since the first publication his work has been republished with only minor revisions,..

    True, in fact there have been at least 14 different editions, 10 of which were in the life time of Delitzsch.



    (2) The DLZ database does in fact contain readings(revisions) not found in the vast majority of printed editions of Delitzsch's Hebrew NT.



    (3) 'minor' and 'major' are not necessarily objective terms and readers may differ on what each constitutes. Since, the revisions found in the DLZ reflect a tendency to bring it in agreement with critical texts not available during Delitzsch's life time I
    am of the mindset that these 'revisions' are of the major type.

    And, at least these should be given footnotes and italicized to indicate that they differ from the printed text.


    (4)
    CCAT format required to input Hebrew/Greek version can be difficult to work with and as such may not facilitate quick correction.


    Concluding Thoughts:


    It would be nice if,an RTF/Unicode to CCAT converter were added to Bibleworks. This would facilitate the entry of new Hebrew/Greek texts, as well as the correction non-copy-write original language texts and other projects.


    The DLZ might be better named to reflect the fact that it's revised form differs in places from the traditional printed text as found in:


    (a) Trinitarian Bible Society edition


    (b) The Society For Distributing Hebrew Scriptures (University Press, Cambridge )
    See their electronic version here:
    http://dvar-adonai.org/hnt/HntHe_en.htm
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,090

    Default What did Ewan say?

    I don't follow this text much mostly because I've never used it, but the question in my mind remains, did anyone contact Ewan to get his explanation of this text? Clearly the text originates with him and he says it was " proofread against a printed copy of Delitzsch's work." I believe elsewhere Adelphos said it *didn't* match any printed text. But my question is, if it didn't match any text, what did Ewan proofread it against?
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    To the best of my knowledge Ewan matched against the online Keran edition.

    Brian, the problem with calling it a Delitzsch is that it has no pedigree.

    Delitzsch was very aware of the WH/Critical Text and he rejected it in a least TEN EDITIONS that he HIMSELF produced. That speaks volumes in and of itself.

    Do you honestly think Delitzsch would approve the doctrinal changes in the DLZ when he HIMSELF, PERSONALLY went out of his way in at LEAST TEN EDITIONS to avoid those doctrinal changes???

    But the bottom line is, the DLZ has no pedigree. That means it cannot be traced back to Delitzsch. That means it is a complete misrepresentation to call it a Delitzsch.

    I know that I could not in good conscience call it a Delitzsch knowing what I now know. Once again -- produce the pedigree. Demonstrate that it goes back to Delitzsch. I can produce the pedigree for the text I am advocating, a pedigree that CAN BE TRACED.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 09-13-2010 at 12:38 PM.

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

    Default

    Since some people may be laboring under the misconception that this whole thing is simply my OPINION, note this statement by Eric Browning, the General Secretary For Distributing Hebrew Scriptures, and note that this statement by him reflects the consensus of ALL I have consulted and who are knowleable of this matter --

    "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."

    Couple that with the FACT that the Keren/DLZ has no legitimate pedigree going back to Delitzsch, and couple that with the FACT that the DLT I have advocated CAN, and it now becomes a matter of simple honesty.

    Pretend there was no such thing as copyright law. Now pretend that somebody took the ESV and made the EXACT SAME CHANGES that I made to the DLT when I conformed it back to the PEDIGREED Delitzsch, and now pretend that that person markets this new translation as an ESV.

    Case closed, at least if words still have meaning.

Posting Permissions

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