English-Greek-Hebrew Triglots

[Adelphos]

After even a little more investigation, as far as I can tell, there is NO printed text of Delitzsch that has asher in 1 Timothy 3:16. Every printed text that I know about has elohim, so I'm almost certain that this is a database error. I'm reporting it as such to BW.

[ISalzman]

Here's the database/version info for DLZ, as provided in BibleWorks:

DLZ - Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament

The Delitzsch Hebrew New Testament was translated from the Elzevir 1624 Received Greek Text by the 19th century German scholar Franz Julius Delitzsch (1813 to 1890), co-author of the well-known multi-volume Keil and Delitzsch Commentary of the Old Testament. Delitzsch's New Testament was first published in 1877. Since the first publication his work has been republished with only minor revisions, and it has maintained its literal style for the Hebrew of Delitzsch's day. This was before Modern Hebrew was created, and consequently the Hebrew leans heavily on the Tanakh for vocabulary, words and expressions. Students of the Tanakh should therefore be able to understand Delitzsch's translation without much difficulty.

The current text was entered by Ewan MacLeod and proofread against a printed copy of Delitzsch's work. As Delitzsch's work goes back to 1877, it is now in the public domain.

---------------------------------

By the way, I must say that I love the Delitzsch Hebrew NT. It is a wonderful translation. The man knew his Hebrew. We are indebted to him to this day.

[bkMitchell]

When speaking of Franz Delitzsch Hebrew NT one must keep in mind that there is more than one version.



Franz Delitzsch and Julius Furst
1870 Romans (Delitzsch was about 57 years old)


1877 1st London edition based on codex Sinaiticus
1878 2nd edition edited to become closer to the Textus Receptus
1880 3rd edition
1882 4th edition


Franz Delitzsch and J. J. Kohan
1883 5th edition
1885 6th edition
1886 7th edition
1888 8th edition
1889 9th edition
1890 10th edition


Dalman's (aramaic) revision of Franz Delitzsch Hebrew NT
1892 11th edition
12th, 13th, and 14th edition


The Trinitarian Bible Society is currently considering a new revision as well.

[Adelphos]

Thanks, Brian. I have researched it as best I could. I have since emailed them to ask for clarification.

The reason I suspect that the online version may not be accurate is because it follows the Textus Receptus phrases but sometimes misses the Textus Receptus single words, such as in 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 10:9, and so forth.

This leads me to believe that whoever first put the text into electronic format could easily perceive when there were differences in the phrases, but perhaps was not so careful about the words, and his master was probably a text based on the Critical Text to begin with. Thus, he just didn't perceive the differences in single words, whereas the phrases were easy to see.

After all, why create a complete hybrid, which is what this online edition is???

In any case, I hope the publisher can clear this up for us.

In the meantime, I am continuing to put the BW DLZ text into my triglots, but I am making the necessary emendations where I see fit to conform to both the Textus Receptus and Delitzsch, for the fact is, Delitzsch was very aware of these variants, and he utterly rejected them in the versions he actually produced and had control over.

Accordingly, if these changes are legitimate, such as the change in 1 Timothy 3:16, then whoever made them prostituted Delitzsch, and I very much doubt he would approve.

Either way, the current edition in BW is wholly untrustworthy without careful scrutiny. It is, as I said, nothing but a hybrid.

[bkMitchell]

...
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...

(1)That is in direct contradiction with Salkinson's own words on the subject where he claims to follow a pure Biblical style.
See, Salkinson's letter to Delitzsch as quoted in:
Franz Delitzsch, "critical observations on my Hebrew New Tesament”　3rd eiditon (1889)
It can be found here in PDF format:
http://vineofdavid.org/remnant_repos...anz_delitzsch/

(2)Salkinson version is that of the Hasaklah/Masklim style of Hebrew, and in that light it would be highly strange that it would be close to Mishnaic. Remmber, Salkinson as well as others in the Hasaklah rejected Rabbinic Hebrew in favor of a more 'biblical style'. However, in their zeal to return to a pure Biblical Hebrew they created something quite different. The ram-shacked the Tanach/OT vocab and express and then applied them in ways foreign to the Tanach/OT.
see, Hebrew in the Church by Pinchas E Lapide pages 92-94 and page 96. (link)

(2) Franz Delitzsch HT endures, because, it uses the grammar of the Pentateuch narratives in the narrative sections of the gospels, but in the letters of Paul it use Mishnic Hebrew terms and expressions. Basically, Franz was far more sensitive to genre than Salkinson and the overall style of Franz Hebrew NT is timeless as long as it's reader is literate in the Pentateuch, and Mishnah. Franz Delitzsch is quite similar to the Hebrew style of Rambam.

(3) Also, it should be noted that Franz critically reviewed almost every Hebrew NT translation up to his time including the various editions of Salkinson. He was able learn from their mistakes and borrow from them. In one of his letters he mentions this as well. As, you can see from my previous post He made more than a few revisions.

[bkMitchell]

Adelphos,

Do, you mean this online version?:

http://www.kirjasilta.net/ha-berit/

[Adelphos]

Adelphos,

Do, you mean this online version?:

http://www.kirjasilta.net/ha-berit/

I scanned that version earlier today and I found -- in the places I checked -- that it's the same as the BW version.

Now then, if Delitzsch made the changes in 1 Timothy 3:16 to asher before he died, then it seems there should be a printed edition to match that. If not, then somebody put asher in there against Delitzsch's explicit desire, for as I said, Delitzsch was very much aware of all the variants.

I find it hard to believe that Delitzsch would remove elohim in the most doctrinally signifcant passage of Scriptue in all the Word of God, and in fact, the most doctrinally significant statement in the universe, while still leaving all the other Textus Receptus readings in place.

That would make no sense whatsoever, and until somebody can show me that he himself did, in fact, replace elohim with asher, I'll still believe it to be incredulous.

[Adelphos]

I just further found a copyright date in my printed edition hidden obscurely in the very back of the book, and it's 1966. Since my text is clearly based on one of the earlier versions of Delitzsch, but which version was still being reprinted after 1966, then it further lends credence to the changes in 1 Timothy 3:16 and other places as being relatively recent.

As I say, I find it hard to believe that Delitzsch would have made these changes.

Either way, the edition I have is outstanding. Too bad it's not the one in electronic format.

[bkMitchell]

I just further found a copyright date in my printed edition hidden obscurely in the very back of the book, and it's 1966.

The most recent edition I have is dated 1998 and notes that it was first printed in 1966. It also retains 'Elohim' in 1 Timothy 3:1. For a while, Oxford press also printed Franz Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament.

[Adelphos]

The most recent edition I have is dated 1998 and notes that it was first printed in 1966. It also retains 'Elohim' in 1 Timothy 3:1. For a while, Oxford press also printed Franz Delitzsch's Hebrew New Testament.

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.