A History of Turkish Bible Translations

Annotated chronology with historical notes

and suggestions for further research

© Bruce G. Privratsky, Ph.D.

With thanks to all who have suggested corrections of previous editions

Please cite: Version “S” – April 2014

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/
Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu

Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1: Turkish in Arabic Letters (Ottoman Turkish, Osmanlıca)
Chapter 2: Turkish in Hebrew Letters (Hebræo-Turkish)
Chapter 3: Turkish in Greek Letters (Græco-Turkish, Karamanlıca)
Chapter 4: Turkish in Armenian Letters (Armeno-Turkish)
Chapter 5: Turkish in Latin Letters (Modern Turkish, Yeni Türkçe)
Chapter 6: Turkish in Cyrillic Letters (Bulgarian Turkish)
Chapter 7: Non-Turkish languages of Anatolia and Rumelia
Chapter 8: History of the Koran in Turkish translation: A Brief Excursus

Appendix I: A list of all Turkish Bibles and Bible portions in strict chronological order but
without annotations
Appendix II: Turkish versions of the Lord’s Prayer
Appendix III: Sample comparisons of Ali Bey’s Bible manuscript with Haki’s text and with
the first printed Turkish Bible
Appendix IV: The life of Wojciech Bobowski (Ali Bey), the first successful translator of the
Turkish Bible, as a slave and free man
Appendix V: An overview of slavery in the 17th-century Ottoman Empire, without which
the life of Ali Bey cannot be understood
 2
Introduction
The Turkish1 Bible has a history almost as old as the English, French and German Bibles of

the Protestant Reformation. Two Turkish translations of the Bible were completed 350 years

ago. The first was a draft manuscript by Yahya b. İshak (known as Haki), datable to the

period 1657-61. It was followed by the stronger translation of Wojciech Bobowski (known as

Ali Bey), who began work in 1662 and finished his final manuscript copy in 1665. One

hundred years earlier the Psalms had been translated by Ahmed b. Mustafa (known as

Leâlî), a Sufi scholar. These first2 Ottoman Turkish translations are remarkable because they

were intended for Muslim readers at a time when a Protestant mission had not yet been

contemplated, let alone organized, for Ottoman Turkey or any other Muslim land. 3 A

century and a half after Ali Bey, a Turkish Bible based on his manuscript was printed for the

first time in Paris (New Testament 1819, Bible 1827), and this became the basis for further

Turkish translations used by Armenian and Greek Christians. Beginning in 1852 revisions

were made to the 1827 version, again in Arabic orthography and intended for Muslim

readers. The work accelerated when an edict on religious freedom in the Ottoman Empire

was promulgated in 1856 after the Crimean War.

1
In this study “Turkish” means the language of the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks and their successors in the
Turkish Republic (Oğuz or “Western” Turkish). The Turkic languages of Central Asia and the Golden Horde are
not detailed here, but fragmentary Kipchak translations that predate the Ottoman Turkish Bible will be
mentioned briefly (an example is included in Appendix II). Still earlier translations or Bible fragments in Old
Turkic may someday be found. In the 9th century there was a Christian khanate of the Karluk Turks centered in
Taraz (southern Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan), to whom a bishop of the Church of the East (Nestorian) was
appointed (Mark Dickens, ”Patriarch Timothy I and the Metropolitan of the Turks,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, Series 3, vol. 20 (2): 117-139 [2010]). To date the earliest trace of the Bible in Central Asia is a Syriac
liturgy in Uyghur transription, intended for the use of the Turcic Uyghurs participating in the Syriac-language
worship of the Nestorian Church (Mark Dickens, “Multilingual Christian manuscripts from Turfan,” Journal of
the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 9 [2009]; “Biblical fragments from the Christian library of Turfan, an
eastern outpost of the Antiochian tradition,” forthcoming).

2
Leâlî, Haki and Ali Bey have competitors for the first Turkish translation: (1) A New Testament translation by
Primus Truber in the 1570s was mentioned by Jean Deny (“À propos des traductions en Turc Osmanli des textes
religieux chrétiens,” Die Welt des Islams, N.S. 4 [1]: 30-39 [1955]), but if a manuscript of this translation ever
existed it may have been in Croatian rather than Turkish, and in any case it would not predate Leâlî‘s Psalms. (2)
The Crusader colonies interacted with Turkish emirs and their armies for two centuries, sometimes on friendly
terms; so it is possible that verses or selections from the Bible were translated during the Crusades. However,
Mark Dickens has not found any such reference in his study of The Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, a Syrian
Orthodox Patriarch who had theological conversations with Kılıç Arslan, Sultan of the Seljuk Turks.

3
Roman Catholic missions, see pages 6-7 and 82 below, also Appendix III.
 3
Turkish was the lingua franca of the Ottoman Empire, which means that Turks were not its

only speakers: Armenians, Greeks, and Jews also spoke Turkish, many of them as their

mother tongue. But because there was as yet no common educational system in Turkey,

these peoples wrote Turkish in their own alphabets. All the books annotated in this history

were written in the Turkish language of Anadolu (Anatolia) and Rumeli (Turkey in Europe),

but the typefaces are variously Arabic, Armenian, Bulgarian Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, and

Latin. Almost all of these Bible translations, including those of Haki and Ali Bey, were done

in Istanbul, reflecting Turkish as spoken there by various ethnic groups at various times. The

first part of the Bible actually printed on an Istanbul printing press was a Turkish Torah in

Hebrew characters, translated by Karaite Jews. Turkey was then a multi-ethnic society

united by the Turkish language.

The Bible has a prominent place in Turkish literary history. Today’s neo-Ottomanist revival

has drawn attention to the old Turkish Bibles and Bible manuscripts, including several by

Muslim scholars that had been forgotten or neglected until recently. Because Ali Bey is a

fascinating figure in the history of Turkish music, his Turkish Bible is regularly mentioned

by music historians; one of his musical works was a setting of Psalms 1 through 14 in the

style of the Ottoman court. He is memorialized in the Turkish Protestant movement as well

— so much so that there is a tendency in the churches to identify every old Bible as “Ali Bey’s

Bible.”

Much as the King James Version (1611) remains more or less understandable to English

speakers today, the language of the first Turkish translations is still familiar to today’s

Turkish speakers — if it is read to them or transcribed into Latin characters. Though they

know the language, few Turks today can read the Arabic alphabet (Osmanlıca, commonly

called eski harfler, old letters) in which the first Turkish Bibles were written. But when

selections from these manuscripts are read to Turkish speakers, or transcribed for them, the

narrative and poetic sections are understood without serious difficulty, excepting a few

obsolete words. It is also true that some sections of the New Testament epistles are so replete

with Arabic and Farsi phrasings that they seem hopelessly archaic to the average Turkish

reader today. Students of Ottoman Turkish know how to decode the two Arabic and one

Persian root words in sular ra’dıŋıŋ sedasından şitab etdiler (the waters fled from the sound of
 4
your thunder [Psalm 104:7, Kieffer’s Bible, 1827]), but Turks today prefer purer Turkish, as in

senin gürlemenin sesinden kaçtılar (Kitabı Mukaddes, 1941) or göğü gürletince sular hemen çekildi

(Kutsal Kitap, 2001).

The New Testament (İncil) has been in print in the Latin orthography of modern Turkish

since 1933 and the Bible (Kitabı Mukaddes) since 1941. A contemporary-language version

(Kutsal Kitap) was published in 2001, followed in 2003 by an alternative version that includes

the Old Testament Apocrypha for the use of the Orthodox and Catholic churches. In 2005 the

Syrian (Süryani) Orthodox Archdiocese of Istanbul published a diglot Bible lectionary in

Syriac with Turkish translation. A translation of the Turkish Bible was issued by a Muslim

publisher for the first time in 2007, and a Turkish translation of the Torah with commentary

was produced by Jewish scholars between 2006 and 2010.

The initial research on this history was conducted in the course of 2010, web-published in

December 2010, and amended since then with new material provided by readers. I have

annotated as many versions of the Turkish Bible as I have been able to acquire from digital

libraries, used book stores (via NadirKitap.com), and individuals. Otherwise I provide

bibliographic data from university library catalogs, many of them accessible via

WorldCat.org. In 1901 Cooper produced a table of the 19th-century editions of the Turkish

Bible,4 but no comprehensive listing for the entire history has appeared in print until now. 5

Can Şakırgil, the translator of the Turkish version of my work, delved into some of the

historical issues I raised, and his researches during the translation process persuaded me to

update many items in this English version also.

Noel Malcolm’s engaging and detailed articles on the history of the 17th-century Dutch and

English projects supersede previous constructions of this period of Turkish Bible

translation.6 Neudecker’s manuscript studies of Ali Bey’s grammar, 7 of a contemporary

4
A.A. Cooper, “The story of the (Osmanli) Turkish version, with a brief account of related versions” (London:
British & Foreign Bible Society, 1901); previously printed in Bible House Papers, No. 1/6 (1899).

5
Listings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_by_language#Turkish and http://www.translation-
trust.org/html/history.html are basic but brief and sometimes misleading.
6
Noel Malcolm, “Comenius, Boyle, Oldenburg, and the Translation of the Bible into Turkish,” Church History and
Religious Culture 87 (3):327-362 (2007a); “Comenius, the Conversion of the Turks, and the Muslim-Christian
Debate on the Corruption of Scripture,” CHRC 87 (3): 477-508 (2007b).

7
Hannah Neudecker, “Wojciech Bobowski and his Turkish grammar (1666): A dragoman and musician at the
court of Sultan Mehmed IV,” Dutch Studies on Near Eastern Languages and Literatures 2 (2): 169-192 (1996).
 5
collection of letters about Ali Bey, and of Haki’s two manuscripts of 1 and 2 Samuel, along
8 9

with Funda Toprak’s study of the Four Gospels in Ali Bey’s draft translation, 10 give us access

to substantial pieces of the 17th-century manuscript tradition. Sadık Yazar has drafted a

helpful guide to New Testament manuscripts by Muslim scholars in the Süleymaniye

archives in Istanbul.11 These works, along with Schmidt’s catalog of Oriental manuscripts in

Leiden12 and Roper’s article on early Turkish printing, 13 have provided substance for my

summaries of the early period. Works by Turkish scholars include those by Behar 14 and

Elçin15 of Ali Bey’s Psalms and other musical works.

In addition to Cooper, older articles by Riggs, 16 MacCallum,17 Deny,18 and Nilson19 were

critically explored, but I tried to confirm their statements from other sources. Cooper is the

source of Ali Şimşek’s brief biography of Ali Bey 20 that was recently reprinted in the preface

to a Turkish Bible. Essentially the same version appears in Steer’s testimonial history of the
8
Hannah Neudecker, “From Istanbul to London? Albertus Bobovius’ Appeal to Isaac Basire,” in The Republic of
Letters and the Levant, ed. A. Hamilton, M. van den Boogert, and B. Westerweel. Intersections: Yearbook for
Early Modern Studies, vol. 5 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005), pp. 173-196.

9
H. Neudecker, The Turkish Bible Translation by Yahya bin ‘Ishaq, also called Haki (1659) (Leiden: Het Oosters
Institut, 1994). Abstract: http://www.nino-leiden.nl/publication.aspx?BK _id=40004. The transliteration is on
pp. 3-213, and the complete facsimile of Haki’s text of 1 and 2 Samuel follows p. 406.

10
Funda Toprak, XVII. Yüzyıla Ait Bir İncil Tercümesi: İnceleme – Metin – Sözlük (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı
Matbaası, 2006), pp. 117-349; she also shows two facsimile pages (though reduced in size) from each of the
four Gospels on pp. 646-653.

11
Sadık Yazar, “New Testament translations on the Ottoman period (XIII - XIX century), manuscript.

12
Jan Schmidt, Catalogue of Turkish Manuscripts in the Library of Leiden University, Vol. I (Leiden, 2000).

13
Geoffrey Roper, “Turkish printing and publishing in England in the 17th century,” a paper presented at the
2nd International Symposium, History of Printing and Publishing in the Languages and Countries of the Middle
East, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris, 2-4 November 2005. URL: http://pagesperso-
orange.fr/colloque.imprimes.mo/pdf/GRR0.pdf.

14
Cem Behar, Ali Ufkî ve Mezmurlar (İstanbul: Pan Yayıncılık, 1990).

15
Şükrü Elçin, Ali Ufkî, Hayatı, Eseri ve Mecmûa-i Sâz ü Söz (İstanbul: Tıpkı Basım, 1976).

16
Charles T. Riggs, “The Turkish translations of the Bible,” The Moslem World 30: 236-248 (1940). URL:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119895184/abstract.

17
F. Lyman MacCallum, “Kitab-ı Mukaddes’in Türkçe tercümesine dair,” Tercüme 3 (13): 59-68 (1942).

18
Deny, op.cit.

19
Paul H. Nilson, “Western Turkish versions of the Bible,” The Bible Translator 17 (3): 133-138 (July 1966).
 6
British Bible Society. 21
Cooper was entranced by the “romance” of the Ali Bey story for

confessional reasons, but even now that it has been brought down to earth by further

historical research, Ali Bey’s life and work reflect a quintessentially Ottoman spirit that has

attracted the attention of Jewish, Christian and Muslim historians, linguists and Bible

translators.22

A good portion of this study is devoted to the 17th-century translations as a demonstration

of what would be possible for historians of the later centuries applying similar methods.

Even for the early period much research remains to be done. Despite Schmidt’s catalog,

Neudecker’s and Toprak’s studies, and a new website displaying some of the Ottoman

Turkish Bibles,23 the 17th-century manuscripts have barely been touched for academic study,

and no critical edition of any Turkish Bible manuscript is anywhere on the horizon. As

online resources make archives and memoirs more accessible, the 19th-century Protestant

missions in the Ottoman Empire are being studied with useful results, 24 but the Bible

translations of this period have received little attention. Comparisons of the Turkish

vocabulary in the various Bible texts would be rewarded with new insights into the

interreligious vitality of the Turkish language. A few examples of this kind are offered in the

following pages.

20
Ali Şimşek, “Kutsal Kitap’ın Türkçe çevirisi,” E-manet, Sayı 2 (Nisan-Haziran 2003), pp. 15-18. Earlier version:
http://www.hristiyanforum.com/forum/kutsal-kitap-cevirileri-f127/kutsal-kitapin-turkce-t3499.html; later
adapted for Açıklamalı Kutsal Kıtap (İstanbul: Yenı Yaşam Yayınları, 2010).

21
Roger Steer, Good News for the World: 200 years of making the Bible heard; The story of the Bible Society
(Oxford: Monarch Books, 2004).

22
Ali Şimşek, director of Yeni Yaşam Yayınları, has been a helpful correspondent, along with Behnan Konutgan,
former director of the Turkish Bible Society (Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi); Rod Harbottle, director of the Translation
Trust; and J.A.N. Frankhuizen of the special collections department at the Leiden University Library. Can Şakırgil
has provided access to several of the Bibles printed in the 19th century. Other sources are mentioned in the
text of this article for their academic works. I thank everyone, named or unnamed, who has replied to my
inquiries.

23
Osmanlıca Kelâm: http://www.osmanlicakelam.net
24
Peter Pikkert, Protestant Missionaries to the Middle East (Hamilton, Ontario: WEC Canada, 2008); Timothy
Marr, “’Drying up the Euphrates’: Muslims, millennialism and early American missionary experience,”
http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/cmes/publications.html; Çağrı Erhan, “Ottoman official attitudes toward
American missionaries,” URL: http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/cmes/publications.htm; Ali Rıza Bayzan,
“Protestant missionary operations on Turkey (1)” (2003),
http://www.stradigma.com/english/april2003/articles_11.html.
 7
Armenian and Arab Orthodox Christians were the focus of Roman Catholic missions in the

Ottoman lands, but their work did not involve Turkish translations of the Bible—we will

encounter the first Catholic translator of the Turkish Bible only in the 1950’s. The early

Catholic work was centered in Syria, where the Maronite Church became the first of several

“Uniate” churches.25 A Catholic printing press for Arabic type was established in Aleppo in

1706 (moved to Lebanon in 1720), and though “selected books of the Bible” were among its

publications, these were in Arabic and Latin and, as far as we know, did not include a

Turkish translation.26 In 1680 Hanna Şamlı (John the Syrian), who may have been a Catholic,

made a manuscript copy of Seaman's Turkish New Testament, but it was not an original

translation.

The Turkish translations are divided below into chapters according to the alphabet in which

they were written. Historical issues are explored in annotations under each version.

25
The Uniate movement in Syria and Iraq was basically about the desire of Greek Orthodox (Melkite) and other
“eastern” churches to have local bishops of their own choosing; in other words, freedom from the heavy hand
of their distant and non-Arabic-speaking patriarchs. Rome was willing to grant them this local authority,
whereas the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul, for example, was not. When the “eastern” churches united
with the Roman Catholic (“western”) Church, the Latin mass was not imposed on them and they were allowed
to keep their ancient liturgies and languages of worship, such as Greek, Syriac (Aramaic), and Armenian. This
semi-independence allowed for creative development. In Catholic churches of Greek Orthodox background,
Byzantine Greek was eventually replaced in the liturgy by Arabic. The best history in English is Bruce Masters,
Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The roots of sectarianism (Cambridge University Press, 2001).

26
ibid., chapter 4
 8

Chapter 1
Turkish in Arabic (Ottoman Turkish, Osmanlıca) Characters

At least one Turkish Bible translation by a Muslim translator preceded the better known

Christian projects that began in the 17th century. The Muslim translations tend to be

fragmentary, and often their provenance and dating is unknown, even when the translator

tells us his name. For example, a facsimile of a Turkish manuscript of the four Gospels and a

few chapters of Acts27 was transcribed in a doctoral dissertation by İ.E. Özkan. 28 The

manuscript’s language is archaic and seemingly independent of wordings in later Turkish

translations, which suggests that it may be from an early period. Unfortunately Özkan

ventured to identify neither the translator nor the historical period to which this manuscript

belongs. In one case, however, we know more.

circa 1550 – Tercüme-i Kasîde-i Fatlubni Tecidni (Call on me and you will find me: A draft
translation). Translated by Leâlî.

During the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent the Ottoman poet and Koranic scholar

Ahmed b. Mustafa also known as Leâlî (born in Saruhan, died in Amasya, 1563), 29 translated

the Psalms into Turkish.30 He was an advocate of Turkish composition, as distinct from the

Persian poetry which was cultivated by Ottoman literati. Because of his proclivity for

Turkish verse we have this early treasure of Turkish Bible translation. His manuscript is

found in a number of libraries under titles such as Tercüme-i ba’zı âyât mine-’z-Zebûr

(Translation of a few verses from the Psalms) and Tercüme-i Du’â-ı Zebûr (Translation of the

prayers of the Psalms).

27
Türk Dil Kurumu, Ankara, manuscript no. Yz. A-19.

28
İbrahim Ethem Özkan, “TDK Yz.A-19 numarada kayıtlı Türkçe İncil Tercümesi (Transkripsiyon-İnceleme-Dizin),”
Kayseri, Erciyesi Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2006 (doctoral dissertation, YÖK no: 189572).

Basic biography: http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/12/849/10748.pdf. Geoffrey Lewis, citing a 19th-

29

century Ottoman scholar, writes that Leali was a famous poet, writing in Turkish as well as Persian, as early as
the reign of Mehmet the Conqueror; if so, Leali lived a very long life (The Turkish Language Reform [Oxford
University Press, 1999], p.7.

30
I am grateful to Dr. Sadık Yazar for sharing his notes on Leâlî and the other Turkish manuscripts of the Psalms
from a draft article to be entitled, “Osmanlı Döneminde Zebur Tercümeleri ve Le'âlî (Ahmed b. Mustafa)’nin
Tercümesi.”
 9
Leâlî’s source text was an Arabic translation by Ibn Abbas. In a heading of the manuscript in

the Süleymaniye Library,31 Leâlî comments on this source: “As Ibn Abbas recounts, ‘I found a

sura in the Psalms sent down to David that resembles the Rahman Sura in the Glorious

Koran and repeats some of its verses. This was in the Syriac language and I translated it into

Arabic.’”

Comparing the Bible with the Koran and searching for biblical prophecies of the coming of

the Prophet motivated Muslim translations in the early period. This motivation helps us

understand why most of these manuscripts by Muslim translators featured only small

fragments of the Bible. Leâlî’s translation of the Psalms, however, is different. His title, “Call

on me and you will find me,” reflects the kind of biblical language that is atttractive to Sufis.

The spiritual experience of the presence of God and the heavenly journey are at the heart of

many of their own writings, which is true also of the Psalms. A study of Leâlî and his times

in light of his translation of the Psalms awaits its researcher.

The first complete Turkish Bible translations

An early proposal for a Turkish translation of the Bible seems to have been made by

Erasmus during the Reformatıon.32 As a humanist he was disturbed by the exclusively

military response of Catholic Europe to Ottoman expansion in the Balkans and the

Mediterranean region. A hundred years later Erasmus’ suggestion that Muslims be

approached with a Bible in their own language inspired J.A. Comenius (Jan Amos

Komenský), a philosopher and educator of the early Enlightenment, to do something about

it.33 Of the two Turkish translations of the Bible and another of the New Testament done in

the 17th century, the two Bibles were promoted by Comenius, and he was consulted about

the additional New Testament project.

31
Hajji Mahmud Efendi Collection, ms. 3387.

32
Malcolm (2007b), p. 493.

33
For an analysis of the religious motivations in Comenius’ vision of “universal [=public] education”, see Daniel
Murphy, Comenius: A Critical Reassessment of His Life and Work (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1995). The
foundational study is Milada Blekastad, Comenius: Versuch eines Umrisses von Leben, Werk, und Schicksal des
Jan Amos Komensky (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget; Praha: Academia, 1969), though Murphy criticizes her for
ignoring the religious values that suffused Comenius’ philosphy of education.
 10
Known as the father of modern education, Comenius was offered the presidency of Harvard

College in its early years but declined, deterred by his duties as a bishop of Unitas Fratrum

(The Unity of Brethren), sometimes called the Bohemian Brethren and later the Moravians.

In 1656 he had fled from Poland to Amsterdam after his church had suffered a long series of

persecutions under the Catholic monarchy of the Hapsburgs who ruled Central Europe. 34

Comenius’ benefactor, the Dutch merchant Laurens de Geer, supported the Turkish Bible

project financially. Academic authority was provided by Jacob Golius (van Gool), professor

of Turkish at Leiden University. Golius’ brother Peter, who lived in Aleppo, was the intended

editor before printing. There being no printing presses on Ottoman soil in the 17th century,

the printer was to be Johann Georg Nissel of Leiden. 35 The point man in Constantinople36

was Levin Warner, the Dutch “resident” (ambassador), who recruited the translators.

1661 – Turkish Bible in manuscript, by Yahya bin İshak, who called himself Hâki (“the
humble”, “man of the soil”).37

Two manuscripts of Haki’s translation are preserved in the Warner Collection of the

University Library at Leiden. One is a draft in four folio volumes (3 Old Testament, 1 New

34
For a biography of Comenius and a history of the travails of the Bohemian Brethren, see the introduction in
Murphy (1995); cf. Malcolm (2007b), p. 497.

35
Neudecker (1994), p. 377; Toprak, p. 19.

36
In the early Ottoman period Istanbul (written Stamboul by Europeans) meant the old city on the peninsula
between the Golden Horn, the Sea of Marmara and the Theodosian Walls. The suburbs, Galata and Pera
(where foreign embassies were located), among others, were not part of the city proper. Ibn Battuta visited in
1332 and referred to Galata as a separate city (Rihla [Beirut, 1964], pp. 350-351; cited by Nadia Maria el-
Cheikh, Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs [Harvard University Press, 2004], p. 207). Although the Ottoman
census of 1477 included Galata it was recorded separately from Istanbul (John Freely, Istanbul: The Imperial
City [Penguin, 1998], p. 188). In Ottoman times all of the above were collectively called Constantinople (or
“Greater Istanbul” now in historical studies). In Turkish they were called Qustantiniye (from the Arabic
intonation of Constantinople), which was further abbreviated to Qosdina in Jewish writings. As for İstanbul, it
probably elided into its phonetic form from the way Turks pronounced the accented syllables of the Greek kon-
STAN-tino-POLi. The notion that İstanbul derives from the Greek eis ten polen (“to the city”) is asserted in many
histories but is substantiated rather weakly in the seminal essay by Steven Runciman ("Constantinople-
Istanbul," Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 7: 205-208 [1969]). In the 17th century Turks began to say
that İstanbul means İslam Bol (full of Islam), which was true enough in spirit but not in etymological terms. In
1924 the surrounding towns were incorporated into Metropolitan Istanbul (İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi),
whereupon letters addressed to Constantinople were returned to sender.

37
Neudecker (1994), pp. 365-382.
 11
Testament), the other a “fair copy” of Genesis through 1 Kings 9:9 only. The transcription of
38

the fair copy was assigned to Nicolas Petri (ibn Butrus), a Christian from Aleppo, who had

once worked as a copyist for Golius in Leiden but was now living in Constantinople. At least

one other copyist was involved, as revealed by the handwriting. 39 Since the fair copy ends in

the middle of a chapter, the work of the copyists was obviously interrupted, and neither

manuscript was ever printed or circulated. A third fragment in Haki’s hand was later bound

inadvertently with the draft manuscript of Ali Bey.

Based on an inscription in Haki’s fair copy at the end of Deuteronomy, Neudecker dates its

completion to 1659, but this probably signifies the completion of the Pentateuch only (both

the draft manuscript and the fair copy). Malcolm has proposed a likely scenario of the

timing of Haki’s work, arguing that his draft of the complete Bible was finished in late 1661. 40

Then, in late 1661 or early 1662, it appears that Levin Warner evaluated the translation,

apparently with the help of Ali Bey, and rejected it. This reconstruction of the timing coheres

with the beginning of Ali Bey’s work on a new translation in February 1662 (see below).

What weighs against it and in favor of Neucker's conclusion that Haki finished in 1659 is the

observation that it would have been remarkably inattentive of Warner to let Haki keep

working on an unacceptable translation for the full four-or-five-year period from 1657 to

1661. Warner lived in Constantinople from 1657 until his death in 1665.

From correspondence recorded in a London newsletter by Samuel Hartlib, we know that the

first proposal to Warner that he produce a Turkish translation was made by Comenius in

1657.41 Warner had been a student of Golius in Oriental languages, 42 but when he arrived to

take up his diplomatic duties in Turkey he hired out the Bible project to Haki, neither

translating nor correcting the manuscripts of his translators. Warner was well enough

38
Leiden University Library, Warner Collection: Cod. Or. 386 (fair copy) and 391a-d (draft); cf. Schmidt, Vol. I, pp.
81-83, 93-97. A third fragment in Haki’s hand is bound with folio Cod. Or. 390b consisting of Genesis 1:1-6:21
only with unnumbered verses (Schmidt, Vol I, p. 86; Neudecker [1994], p. 394).

39
Neudecker (1994), p. 394f. Ibn Butrus is not identified here but Neudecker has told me that he was one of the
two (or more) copyists.

40
Neudecker (1994), p. 367; Malcolm (2007a), p. 332.

41
Malcolm (2007a), p. 330f.

42
Neudecker (1994), p. 369.
 12
satisfied with Haki’s progress in late 1659 to announce to Comenius and his Dutch friends

that he would soon deliver a manuscript of the Turkish Bible ready for printing. 43 This being

the case, Warner must have hired Haki almost immediately on his arrival in Constantinople

in 1657.

Who Was Haki?

Haki was a Jewish dragoman (tercüman, translator) and likely a native of Constantinople,

which was called Qosdina by Jews.44 Neudecker has demonstrated that he translated the Old

Testament from Hebrew. (No study has yet been made of Haki’s New Testament.) Some of

his marginal glosses are in Ladino, the Hebræo-Spanish language of the Sephardic Jews. A

comment in Latin in another hand appears at the end of Haki’s draft manuscript observing

that his Turkish is full of Hebraisms and sounds like the Talmud. This disparaging note was

probably written by Ali Bey.45

Haki tells us his name in his manuscript, and Ali Bey mentions him once in a marginal note

in his own draft manuscript of the Book of Judges. Haki is identified as Warner’s dragoman

in the latter’s will, which awarded him “une veste drap” — clothing from the master’s closet

being a common bequest to a servant or employee. 46 Otherwise we know nothing of Haki’s

life. His name has not surfaced from the Ottoman archives, and Neudecker’s search for the

names Yahya b. İshak and Haki in the Jewish cemeteries at Hasköy and Kuzguncuk turned

up nothing.47

When Robert Pinkerton of the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) discovered Ali Bey’s

manuscripts in the Leiden archives in 1814, he missed or ignored Haki’s manuscript. A study

of Pinkerton’s reports in the BFBS archives might shed light on this omission. Cooper’s
43
Malcolm (2007a), p. 329f.

44
In the early Ottoman period Istanbul meant the old city on the peninsula between the Golden Horn, the Sea
of Marmara and the Theodosian Walls. It population was primarily Muslim, but Jews still occupied Balat and
Eminönü, their quarters from the Byzantine period, until they were expelled from Eminönü after the Great Fire
of 1660. Until the 20th century the name Constantinople was still used to describe “Greater Istanbul”; in
Turkish it was called Qustantiniye (from the Arabic intonation of Constantinople), which was further
abbreviated to Qosdina in Jewish writings (http://www.jewishtoursistanbul.com/cosdina.html).

45
Neudecker (1994), p. 367.

46
Neudecker (2005), p. 185.

47
Neudecker (1994), p. 366, n. 11.
 13
article on the history of the Turkish Bible (1901) does not mention Haki, nor do Deny (1956)

or Nilson (1966). Haki’s work seems to have been unknown until Barbara Flemming

examined his manuscripts and published a short article describing them in 1986. 48

This was followed in 1994 by Neudecker’s excellent book on Haki’s manuscripts, informed

by her knowledge of both Turkish and Hebrew. She describes his translation as “very literal”

and “pseudo-interlinear” because “the clause syntax is Semitic, whereas the phrase syntax is

Turkish.”49 Neudecker’s study is not a critical edition of Haki but does contain two hundred

pages of 1 and 2 Samuel in strict transliteration, 50 along with facsimile pages from Haki’s

manuscript of these two books. She analyzes Haki’s Turkish for what it tells us about 17th-

century Ottoman usage. See Appendix III below for an example of Haki’s language.

A five-page manuscript of the first eight Psalms in Ottoman Turkish by another Jewish

figure, Ibrahim el-Isra’ili, is held in the Süleymaniye Archives and has been examined by

Sadık Yazar.51 We do not know who Ibrahim was or when he lived. Yazar thinks the

manuscript may be from an early period, but further research is needed to determine

whether it predates Haki and Ali Bey.

Background of the Early Turkish Translations

In 1648 the Thirty Years War had ended with Protestants having failed to achieve the goal of

religious toleration in Catholic lands. This European dynamic is the backdrop for the early

Turkish Bible translations. Interest in Turkey on the part of Bohemian, Dutch and English

Protestants was inspired by a millennial vision that has been intriguingly labeled Calvino-

Turkism, a wishful political alliance between Islam and Protestantism that would encircle

the Catholic Hapsburgs.52 According to the prophecies of Comenius’ friend, Mikuláš Drabík
48
B. Flemming, “Zwei türkische Bibelhandschriften in Leiden als mittelosmanische Sprachdenkmäler,” Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 76: 111-118 (1986).

49
Neudecker (1994), p. 2.

50
Unfortunately, Neudecker’s useful transliteration scheme for Ottoman vowels can no longer be used. Her
characters were produced by a DOS word processor, and Unicode does not include them.

51
Süleymaniye Library, Es’ad Efendi Collection, ms. 5. I thank Sadık Yazar for sharing with me his notes on “Zebûr
Tercümeleri.”

52
M.E.H.N. Mout, “Calvinoturcismus und Chiliasmus im 17. Jahrhundert,” Pietismus und Neuzeit. Ein Jahrbuch
zur Geschichte des neueren Protestantismus 14: 72-84 (1988); “Calvinoturkisme in de zeventiende eeuw,”
Tijdschrift voor Geshiedenis 16: 576-607 (1978). Christian alliances with the Turks had a long track record. The
 14
(Nicolaus Drabicius), a Turkish victory over the Hapsburgs would be followed in God’s plan

by the conversion of the Turks as a prelude to the conversion of the Jews and the union of all

religions into one true church.53 (Unifying the world through spiritual enlightenment and

universal education was a basic theme in the writings of Comenius.) For such a purpose a

Turkish translation of the Bible had to be prepared, in Comenius’ words, “out of holy zeal

for the conversion of a great nation to Christ.”54 He believed this to be an “endeavour for

peace”55 among the peoples of the world. A similar millenarian vision in the mind of Samuel

Hartlib inspired a parallel Turkish translation project in England (see Seaman 1666 below).

A political overture was made to the Turks during a visit to the grand vizier by Drabik’s

disciple, Johann Jakob Redlinger.56 In 1665(?) Redlinger visited the Ottoman army camp in

Hungary, told the grand vizier that the Turkish translation of the Bible was ready, and

requested that he be invited to come to Constantinople, learn Turkish, and expound on the

Bible. Nothing came of this, but Drabik’s prophecies did not depend on full-blown

missionary endeavor. The key was a military victory by those “servants of God,” the

Ottomans and their European allies, over the Hapsburg “idolaters” (Catholic worship being

viewed as idolatrous by Protestants). As for the conversion of the Turks, it would occur after

the victory by the miracle of their encounter with the Word of God in their own language.

This was the era of Luther’s principle of sola scriptura. For Comenius, the European

French king, Francis I, made a military alliance with Suleyman the Magnificient in 1526, and Titian painted a
dual portrait of the two monarchs ca. 1530. Luther preached that good Christians could accept the rule of the
Turks, because unlike the Pope the Turks would let Luther interpret the Bible in his own way (Richard Marius,
Martin Luther [Harvard University Press, 1999], pp. 146, 186, 236). Earlier, the Crusader cities in Syria had
made various alliances with Muslim emirs during their 200-year history on the Levantine shores. In 1182
Patriarch Michael of the Syrian Orthodox Church supported Kılıç Arslan II of Rum, the Seljuk sultan. “Michael
sought to affirm that Turkish rule, including all the suffering caused by their raiding and pillaging, was
ultimately part of God’s plan… [T]hey had a God-ordained role to play in human history, a role that his Syrian
Orthodox readers were not to question, but humbly to accept” (Mark Dickens, “The Sons of Magog: The Turks
in Michael’s Chronicle,” in Parole de l’Orient 31: 446f. [2006]).

53
Roper, p. 7

54
Malcolm (2007a), p. 349.

55
Malcolm (2007a), p. 360.

56
Malcolm (2007b), p. 499, cites German sources on Redlinger, among them: Klaus Schaller, “Johann Jakob
Redinger in seinem Verhältnis zu Johann Amos Comenius,” in Martin Bircher, et al., eds., Schweizerisch-
deutsche Beziehungen im konfessionellen Zeitalter: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte 1580-1650 (Wiesbaden,
1984), pp. 139-66.
 15
Reformation had occurred by the spiritual power of Scripture alone, and the same could

now be expected in the friendly Turkish lands as well. Such hopeful idealism predated the

practical realities of the Muslim-Christian encounter later experienced by European and

American Protestants who began their work in Ottoman lands only in 1819.

The visions of Drabik57 had been incubated in the fire of the Hapsburgs' persecution of The

Unity of Brethren Church. Ottoman Turkey was already a refuge for European renegades

and victims of religious persecution. Turkey was also the strongest single military power in

Europe, and it was therefore logical for Comenius and Drabik to think of the Ottoman sultan

as a savior. Drabik believed he had heard God instructing him to

write to your Assistant [sc. Comenius], that vessel of my grace, and tell him that he
should consider how the Law of my word, and the Psalms and hymns, together
with an outline of the organization of the church [sc. The Unity of Brethren], may
be translated into the Turkish language and sent to the Sultan.58

Comenius justified Drabik’s prophecies theologically, believing that Muslims, by virtue of

their belief that Jesus is the Messiah, are closer to Christianity than are the Jews, and that

Muslims would therefore embrace the Gospel before the Jews did. The Turks would

spontaneously “take up the teaching of the Gospel, and on their foreheads they will accept

this sign of mine: Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews.” 59 The conversion of the Jews would

then follow at the end of time. It is important to note that Comenius never mentioned the

idea of deploying Protestant evangelists in Muslim lands, though he did expect the Turks to

welcome his Bible-based program of “universal” (meaning public) education.

57
Comenius’ confidence in Drabik was sadly misplaced (Murphy, pp. 40-42). Drabik had previously prophesied a
Swedish victory over the Poles which would be followed by Swedish support for the return of The Unity of
Brethren to Bohemia from their refuge in the Polish city of Leszno. Believing Drabik, Comenius wrote to the
Swedish king, encouraging an invasion of Poland. When the Poles unexpectedly defeated the Swedes, Leszno
was destroyed in reprisal by the Polish army on 29 April 1656, and the Brethren were dispersed again.
Comenius fled to Holland. Still loyal to his errant friend, he then arranged for the publication of the prophecies
of Drabik and two other prophets of The Unity of Brethren. For this he was roundly criticised by his own
followers, “accusing him of having precipitated the destruction of Leszno by propagating Drabík’s predictions”
(Murphy, p. 41).

58
Quoted in Malcolm (2007b), p. 495.

59
ibid.
 16
Despite this millenarian background of the first Turkish Bible, Flemming’s description of the

17th-century Turkish Bible translation projects as “missionarisch”60 is an anachronism. The

concept of Protestant missionaries was not known until the end of the 18th century, and

none were resident in Ottoman lands until 1819. At this time “missionary” was used

exclusively to describe Catholic priests and religious orders working in the French and

Spanish colonies. As a result of the Franco-Ottoman military alliance Catholic missions were

established in Lebanon and Aleppo from the 17th century onwards; they made converts

from the Christian churches of the Syrian region but did not interest themselves in Muslims,

let alone Turks.61 The Catholic ambience of the word “missionary” made it a concept that did

not flow smoothly into Protestant vocabulary or Comenius’ interest in the Turks. Martin

Luther had taunted the Pope to send preachers to the Turks instead of raising Catholic

armies against them, but this was hyperbole: Luther himself never considered such a

program for the new Evangelische Kirche. Chaplains to the diplomatic and merchant

communities in Constantinople did not think of their work as a mission to the Turks, and

when they engaged with local people at all it was usually with the Ottoman Christian

minorities. Comenius was an energetic educator but also a man of his age: he never

conceptualized the sending of missionaries. He simply dreamed of the spiritual

enlightenment of the Turks by means of Bible reading, to which they would devote

themselves in gratitude for the support of their Protestant allies in the conquest of Catholic

Europe.

A Hebrew New Testament had been in print in Europe since 1599, 62 and a Hebrew Bible was

printed in 1662 in Leiden. This encouraged Comenius in his commitment to a similar

Turkish translation. He drafted a dedication in which he appealed to the sultan to let the

Turkish Bible be read in his realms, reminding him that God “has stirred up your spirit… to

60
Flemming, p. 111.

61
Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The roots of sectarianism (Cambridge
University Press, 2001)

62
“The first printed portion of the New Testament in Hebrew was an imperfect edition of Matthew’s Gospel in
1537. The first complete New Testament was translated by Hutter and printed in 1599…” URL:
http://trinitarianbiblesociety.com/site/articles/heb.asp; cf. http://www.biblesocietyinisrael.com/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=35&lang=en.
 17
take charge of restoring the Jewish people, who are dispersed throughout the world, so that

they may once again obey the God of their fathers as one people and one kingdom.”63

Mentioning a kingdom of the Jews appears to have been Comenius’ way of endorsing of the

messianic claims of his contemporary Sabbatai Sevi, a rabbi of Smyrna, who hoped to be

crowned king of Israel by the Ottoman sultan. 64 Jews in Europe had been selling their

property and heading for the Near East to await the enthronement of this Jewish king. The

fervor had affected Christians also, as Comenius’ dedication reveals. As far away as Boston,

Increase Mather was energized by the apocalyptic implications of the restoration of the Jews

to their kingdom. He held a series of lectures on the conversion of the Jews which created

such spiritual distraction in Boston that a council of pastors asked him to stop. There were

no Jews in Boston, but Mather’s Puritan following was excited by the thought of the

conversion of the Jews as a pre-condition of the return of Christ. 65

Eventually Sabbatai was arrested in Istanbul and thrown in jail, but the fervor did not die

down. Jews began making pilgrimages to his prison castle at Kilitbahir on the Gallipoli

Peninsula, hailing him as the messiah and king of the world, expecting the Ottoman sultan

to surrender his kingdom to their messiah. The Turks had had enough. Sabbatai was

summoned to an audience with Sultan Mehmet IV in Edirne in September 1666 and

threatened with death, whereupon he converted to Islam on the spot.66 After this episode

63
Malcolm (2007a), p. 352; Malcolm (2007b), p. 483. The complete Latin text of the draft dedication and an
English translation have been published for the first time by Malcolm (2007b), pp. 479-485, along with his
excellent analysis of it.

64
Marc David Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and conquest in Ottoman Empire (Oxford
University Press, 2008), chapter 6, is the best recent treatment of Sabbatai Sevi. John Freely’s travelogue, The
Lost Messiah: In search of the mystical rabbi Sabbatai Sevi (Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Press, 2001) is an
engaging treatment; for an overview see: Kaufman Kohler and Henry Malter, "Shabbethai Zebi b. Mordechai,"
URL: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view_friendly.jsp?artid=531&letter=S.

65
Michael G. Hall, The Last American Puritan: The Life of Increase Mather, 1639-1723 (Hanover, N.H.: University
Press of New England, 1988), pp. 76-77, 273-275.

66
Sabbatai Sevi (Zvi) left behind an Islamo-Jewish community disparagingly called Dönme (convert, renegade),
whose adherents still believe he was the messiah and that his conversion to Islam a fulfillment of the messiah’s
suffering as prophesied in Isaiah and the “Servant Psalms”. In Istanbul the Dönme prefer the name Selanikli,
because many of them came to Turkey from Salonica. Cf. Jacob M. Landau,”The Dönmes: Crypto-Jews under
Turkish rule,” Jewish Political Studies Review 19 (1-2) (2007); Marc David Baer, The Dönme: Jewish Converts,
Muslim Revolutionaries, and Secular Turks (Stanford University Press, 2009); İlhan Zorlu, Evet, Ben Selanikliyim:
Türkiye Sabetaycılığı (İstanbul: Zvi-Geyik Dış Tic. Basın Yayın ve Turizm, 2004).
 18
and the collapse of the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683, the visionary engine of the Calvino-

Turkish utopia lost steam. The long-term survivor of this millennial period was not a Jewish

kingdom but a Bible in Ottoman Turkish, of which Haki’s and Ali Bey’s manuscripts were

early drafts.

1662-64, 1665 – Turkish Bible in manuscript, by Ali Bey (Ali Ufkî)

Wojciech Bobowski (pronounced vóy-chek ba-bóf-ski) was also known as Albertus Bobovius, a

pen name, and as Ali Bey to the Turks. He was born in Lwów in Polish Lithuania (now Lvív,

Ukraine); his birth date is uncertain but is often cited as “circa 1610.” As a boy or young man

he was captured by Tatar raiders, sold as a slave (esir) in Istanbul, circumcised and given the

name Ali. He was eventually enrolled in the sultan’s palace school (Mekteb-i Enderun) and

served for about 20 years at the Topkapı Palace as a musician and dragoman (tercüman,

translator). In the Ottoman classification of slave ranks, this now made him a high-status kul

of the sultan. Evliya Çelebi tells us in his Seyâhatnâme that Sultan Mehmet IV once honored

“Polish Ali” with the gift of a horse and complimented his Turkish fluency (“şu düzgün

konuşan, ağzı laf yapan Lehli Hâli”).67 He had gained his freedom before 1657, i.e. at least five

years before Levin Warner hired him to translate the Bible. For biographical details and

research issues on Ali Bey’s life, see Appendices IV and V.

Ali Bey’s Manuscripts

Preserved in four folio volumes in Leiden, Ali Bey’s draft translation is the lineal ancestor of

today’s Turkish Bible. From the dates he noted when he finished drafting each book of the

Bible, we know he began work in February 1662 and finished in December 1664.68 In 1665 he

supervised at least two secretaries (as revealed by the handwriting styles) who made two

“fair copies”, known also as the secretarial copies, which were were sent to Golius along

with the draft. One of the secretarial copies is complete and preserved in five folios (Cod. Or.

1101a-f), missing only a few pages in the Book of Job; the other contains only Isaiah and

several books of the Apocrypha. The draft in Ali Bey’s hand and the secretarial copies are

archived in Leiden.69 Another fair copy—this one in Ali Bey’s hand—survives in Amsterdam

67
Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnamesi, ed. Seyit Ali Kahraman (İstanbul, 2010).

68
Schmidt, op.cit,, vol. 1, pp. 84-90, provides a list of dates written in Ali Bey’s hand in his draft manuscript.,
Cod. Or. 390a-d.
 19
with corrections by Şahin Kandi superimposed (see below). The Turkish Language Society
70

(Türk Dil Kurumu) in Ankara has microfilm of Ali Bey’s manuscript in Leiden.71

One of the secretarial copies (Cod. Or. 1101a-f) features full vowel pointing, which was

unusual in Ottoman Turkish manuscripts. We may only speculate about why the points

were added. There were rather few Ottomanists in western Europe at the time, so perhaps

Golius was concerned that a typically unpointed text might be misunderstood by his editors

or typesetters; he may have requested a pointed copy for purposes of clarification.

Presumably there was no intention that the vowel points be included in the printed book.

Like Haki’s, Ali Bey’s translation contains a collection of the Old Testament Apocrypha. This,

along with his occasional marginal notes in Latin and the fluent Latin of his other writings,

has prompted the suggestion that both he and Haki were translating from the 4th-century

Latin Bible, the Vulgate. Ali Bey versified the Psalms and several other passages according to

the Vulgate tradition (the numbering is different in Protestant Bibles). However, Ali Bey

follows the Textus Receptus72 where New Testament textual variants are involved (in

passages I have examined thus far), suggesting that his source text was one of the modern

vernacular versions based on Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, perhaps the Olivétan Bible of

French Protestantism and/or the King James Version. A study of Ali Bey’s spellings of proper

names, e.g. Petro, Se‘mun, Filipo, Pilato, would reveal much about his connections with

Christian traditions. Several of these are Italian spellings and suggest a Catholic connection.

69
Leiden University Library, Warner Collection: Cod. Or. 390a-d is Ali Bey’s rough draft; Cod. Or. 390e. is a proof
sheet printed in 1662; Cod. Or. 1101a-f is the secretarial “fair copy”, and Cod. Or. 1117a is the incomplete
secretarial fair copy; cf. Schmidt, vol 1. pp. 83-92, 416-422, 435-436. Schmidt’s pp. 418 and 436 feature images
of two pages from the secretarial copies in a finer hand and larger characters than the page of Ali Bey’s draft in
his own hand shown on p. 85.

70
Amsterdam University Library: MS J 69c is a fair copy and MS VI H 2 is another fair copy lacking the
Pentateuch, Apocrypha, and New Testament. Both fair copies are in Ali Bey’s hand. Cf. Malcolm (2007a), pp.
336-37, fn27,28; Schmidt, vol. 4 (forthcoming), pp. 10-20.

71
Listed under letter K as Mikrofilm/34 Kitab-ı Mukaddes (Tevrat, Zebur, İncil) Ali Bey (çev.):
http://tdkkitaplik.org.tr/mikrofilm.asp.

72
“Textus Receptus”, the 'received text', is a Latin designation used by Bible scholars for the Greek New
Testament edited by Erasmus and reflected in European translations of the Reformation period, including
Luther's Bible and the King James Version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus. Ancient Greek
manuscripts discovered since the Reformation have influenced modern translations including the Turkish
Kitab-ı Mukaddes of 1878 and the Kutsal Kitap of 2001.
 20
The fact that Ali Bey refers to John the Baptist as Yûhannâ Ma‘madânî, 73
a Christian

construction of John’s name in Arabic, suggests that he was in contact with the Oriental

churches also, perhaps the Syrian Orthodox Church where Syriac (Aramaic) was the

liturgical and Arabic the vernacular language. Ali Bey could not have consulted an Arabic

Bible, because the first modern (Catholic) translation was printed in Rome only in 1671, and

he would not likely have had access to the ancient and medieval Arabic manuscripts copied

primarily in Egypt.

Ali Bey would not have done a Turkish translation of the Apocrypha unless it had been

ordered by his Dutch Reformed sponsors. In 1648 the Westminster Confession had pointedly

denounced the Apocryphal books, but this English Reformed position does not seem to have

influenced Comenius, Golius and Warner: the Old Testament with appended Apocrypha

was the Bible they knew. In any case they may have felt that a Turkish translation of the

Bible should include all the books in the Bible of the ancient churches of the Ottoman

Empire.

At the end of Haki’s manuscript a critical comment in another hand appears to have been

written by Ali Bey. A likely scenario is that Warner asked Ali Bey for advice on the quality of

Haki’s work, accepted Ali’s judgment that it sounded too Jewish, and hired him to produce a

new translation.74 Haki’s manuscript was available to Ali Bey as he did his own translation.

See Appendix III (a) for a comparison and indications of ways Ali Bey made use of Haki’s

draft.

Ali Bey’s draft manuscripts were sent to Jacob Golius in Leiden in four parts as he finished

them. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel were sent first, and a single page from Isaiah was

printed already in late 1662 as a demonstration of what the text would look like in the

typeface then available.75

Ali Bey generally used the Islamic theonyms Allah Teâlâ or simply Allah to translate YHWH,

Taŋrı to translate Elohim, and Efendi(m) or Rabb or Rabbî to translate Adonai. But he was not

always consistent; for example in Genesis 1:1-2:4 he used Cenâb Bârî (Glorious Creator), Bârî

73
Toprak, p. 119, transcribing Cod. Or. 390d.

74
Malcolm (2007a), p. 334

75
Schmidt, vol. I. p. 92.
 21
Teâlâ (Most High Creator) and Allah Teâlâ (Most High God), as well as the Old Turkic Taŋrı,

to translate the single Hebrew word Elohim. Then YHWH Elohim (two words) in Gen. 2:5 is

written Taŋrı Allâhü Teâlâ (three words). Clearly he was contextualizing the translation for a

Muslim audience. Peter describes Jesus as hayâtıŋ sultânı (sultan of life) in Acts 3:15, where

the English has “author of life”. The Old Testament patriarchs had both wives (avrat) and

concubines (câriye), again reflecting the language of Ottoman culture. Since Levin Warner

sent Ali Bey’s translation on to Leiden, we may presume that he approved of this kind of

contextualization, but a controversy erupted over the divine names in the 1820s after his

New Testament appeared in print (see below).

Levin Warner died in Turkey on 22 June 1665. The traditional dating of Ali Bey’s Bible

manuscript is 1666, but this date can be forced to apply only to the fair copies of his

manuscript transcribed during 1665 and sent on to Leiden by late 1665. It was probably one

of these copies with vowel points that was used as the source text for the first printed

Turkish New Testament in 1819 and Bible in 1827. We do not know whether the draft

manuscript, completed in 1664, was consulted; the secretarial copies are more legible, one of

them written in a quite elegant hand.

The Legend of Sultan Mehmet’s Bible

Ali Bey’s servitude in the sultan’s entourage seems to have ended before 1657, and he went

to work for the Ottoman government again only in 1669. His translation of the Bible was

done during four years of the intervening period, 1662-65. There is no evidence that he

translated the Bible while he was a slave of the sultan or in the sultan’s service as a

freedman, as claimed by MacCallum,76 let alone that it was Sultan Mehmet IV himself who

disapproved of Haki’s translation and ordered Ali Bey to start over. Avcı Mehmet (“the

hunter”) was a ghazi warrior who pursued a policy of converting the Jews of Istanbul and

Christians in Thrace and the Balkans to Islam. By no means was he interested in translating

the Bible.77

The source of the legend seems to be that two centuries later, in 1856, Sultan Abdülmecid

accepted a gift of a Turkish Bible from the British ambassador, Sir Stratford Canning, after

76
MacCallum (1942), p. 61.

77
Baer, Honored by the Glory of Islam, op.cit. is a fine study of the long reign of Sultan Mehmet IV.
 22
the promulgation of religious liberty in the Ottoman Empire. Later Sultan Abdulhamid II

approved the printing of the Kitab-ı Mukaddes, though initially the government had resisted

its publication and changed its mind only under pressure from the British (see below under

Kitab-ı Mukaddes, 1878). It is historically groundless for these equivocal incidents from the

latter half of the 19th century to be transposed back two centuries to the time of Ali Bey and

Sultan Mehmet IV.

Nevertheless, both Christians and Muslims have circulated the conjecture that Sultan

Mehmed ordered the translation of the Bible. 78 The coincidence that Ali Bey who had once

been the Sultan’s slave was also a Bible translator has seeded an imaginary scenario of

interreligious convergence between Islam and Christianity that never occurred. History is

easily constructed in our own image, and in this case the construction has a double source.

On the one hand, Turkish scholars of the Ottoman heritage naturally try to minimize

European influence on Ottoman cultural achievements, and the Turkish Bible was one of

these. On the other hand, Christians hope that, if an Ottoman sultan actually ordered the

Turkish Bible, it will now gain legitimacy in a country where Muslims tend to discredit it.

However captivating, the legend must give way to the historical record, which testifies that

the early translations of the Turkish Bible were inspired, directed and funded from the

Netherlands. Ali Bey did his translation while employed by the Dutch ambassador and did

not begin work on it until four or five years after he was freed from slavery.

The Quality of Ali Bey’s Translation and the Revision of his Manuscripts

In 1666 Golius began reading Ali Bey’s fair copy. Until then Golius, Comenius and others

had been under the impression that Levin Warner was doing the translation himself, but by

now Warner was dead and they finally learned that Ali Bey was the translator. Golius

criticized Ali Bey’s work for both style and accuracy and proposed that revisions be done by

Şahin ibn Kandi of Aleppo.79 Şahin was an Armenian copyist of Oriental manuscripts at

Leiden University, supervised by Golius and funded by de Geer. Corrections in Şahin’s hand

78
Akın and Bayraktar, in their introduction to Ekümenik Kutsal Kitap (see below, 2007), p. 4.

79
For Şahin’s role, see Jan Schmidt, “An ostrich egg for Golius: The Heyman Papers preserved in the Leiden and
Manchester University Libraries...” in his The Joys of Philology: Studies in Ottoman literature, history and
Orientalism (1500-1923), İstanbul, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 53-9.
 23
can be seen on Ali Bey’s fair copy in Amsterdam, where several books of the Old Testament

written out in Şahin’s hand are also archived.

The nature of Şahin’s corrections has not been studied, nor do we know precisely why

Golius felt corrections were needed, so we must rely the evaluations of Ali Bey’s work by

later scholars. Flemming praised Ali Bey’s strenuous work, as compared to Haki’s heavy

word-for-word translation: “Alî Beg searches for lofty and learned words to form a Biblical

Turkish style in the spirit of the original.”80 But Şahin may have noted that sometimes Ali

Bey’s spelling of Arabic words is inconsistent; for example, he occasionally drops the initial

ayin in words beginning with the vowel a. Ali Bey used words that eventually became

obsolete, were rightly corrected by Kieffer, and never appeared again in any translation,

though these should not have bothered Şahin who was Ali Bey’s contemporary. On rare

occasions Ali Bey’s Turkish syntax is excessively conversational, as in 2 Samuel 11:22 where

he wrote, “müjdeci gitti ve gelip Dâvûd’a i’lâm eyledi cümle ol nesne ki Yoâb onuŋ için onu

gönderdi idi,” which Kieffer properly corrected to read “haberci gitdi ve gelip Dâvuda cümle

Yoâbıŋ oŋa ısmarladığını i’lâm eyledi.” On the other hand, Ali Bey’s choice of words was often

better than Kieffer’s, so that two later translators, Selim Efendi and Schauffler, sometimes

rejected Kieffer’s version and returned to Ali Bey’s usage as it had appeared in the Turkish

New Testament of 1819. Most notably, Ali Bey constructs narrative sentences in an

uncomplicated and conversational manner. Any criticism of Ali Bey’s occasionally archaic

vocabulary must be tempered by Sadık Yazar’s observation that Ali Bey was loyal to the

sentence structure of the Turkish of his time. The literary tradition he knew often featured

simple and popular Turkish, Yusuf Emre being the classic example.

Since he was an Ottoman Christian, Şahin may have objected to the way Ali Bey delved into

Islamic culture to find equivalents of the biblical material. Ali Bey knew that

Muslims, not Christians, were the target audience for his Bible, but Şahin may not

have grasped or accepted this. In Matthew 6:5-6, for example, Jesus speaks these words in
Ali Bey’s rendering:

Namâz kıldığıŋ zamân mürâ’îler gibi olma zîrâ onlar kenisalarda ve çarşlılarda adamlara
goo ruu nmek için namâza ikâmet etmeği severler — hakkâ derim size ki artık cezâsını

80
Flemming , p. 114, my translation.
 24
almışlardır — ammâ sen namâz kıldığıŋ zamân kendỉ odaŋa gir de kapıŋı kapa ve halvetde
olan Babaŋa namâz kıl da halvetde gören Allah saŋa âşikâre sevâb bağışlaya

(When you recite the namaz don’t be like the hypocrites, because they love to stand up in
the synagogues and at the street junctions for the namaz so as to be seen by men. Truly I
say to you they have received their recompense. But when you recite the namaz go into your
own room and shut the door and say your namaz to your Father who is in halvet and God
who sees in halvet will grant you sevap openly.)

Here we feel the daily experience of the Turkish street, where men get up from their

work, close their shops, walk to the mosque, sit down and wait for imam to start,

then stand up for the first cycle of prostrations. Whether this is for love of God or “to

be seen by men” is a regular subject of conversation among Muslims. Ali Bey knew

that many in the Muslim community would applaud Jesus’ words. In this passage

not only namaz but also halvet and sevap are Islamic terms. For the Sufis a halvet was a

place of seclusion in the presence of God, and sevap is the merit of good deeds

earning God’s favor. Protestants will squirm at the thought that Jesus was talking

about sevap in this passage, but it is difficult for Muslim readers to interpret it in any

other way, regardless of what kind of vocabulary is used. Ali Bey hesitated only at

one point: he could have used a neutral word that would imply “mosque” but

instead wrote kenisa which can only mean church or synagogue, thus reminding his

Muslim readers that Jesus was actually speaking to Jews.

Toprak notes a few instances where Ali Bey’s draft manuscript shows evidence of having

been translated by a non-native speaker of Turkish. Some of these recur in Kieffer’s edition

of 1827 and most were corrected in the editons of Türabi Efendi in the 1850s and by Selim

and Schauffler in the following decade. As shown by Toprak, 81 Ali Bey also has a habit of

using a plural noun after an adjectival number that modifies it, e.g. ol yedi etmekleri ve

balıkları alıp şükr ėdip pareledi, where yedi etmegi (ekmegi) ve balığı would be expected by a

modern native speaker. In Ali Bey’s time the double plural seems to have been under the

influence of Turkish numbers modifying Arabic plural nouns; so it would not have been

incorrect as it is in Turkish today.

81
Toprak, pp. 32, 36, 54.
 25
When Baron von Diez reported to the Bible Society in 1814 he praised the translation as

accurate and inspiring:

If I find, in the progress of the work, Ali Bey’s version as correct as hitherto, I do
not say too much when I assert that it will rank among the very best versions of the
sacred volume; and in many passages even excel them. His style is truly classical.
Indeed, should the Turkish language ever be lost, it might be restored from this
work in all its copiousness and ease. Having made the Turkish language for thirty
years my constant study, and considered it almost a second mother tongue, it is
really a treat to me to sit down in order to hear the Word of God speaking to me in
this language.82

This sentiment is felt also by readers today, which is remarkable considering that Turkish

was not Ali Bey’s native language.

In August 1666 Ali Bey was unaware that Şahin had been asked to revise his work and

hoped that he might be invited to do the job himself. Under his Latin pen name, Albertus

Bobovius, he wrote to Isaac Basire, an English friend who had introduced him to the English

ambassador. In the letter he writes that he would like to work in England and revise his

translation by consulting the Bible commentary of the Swiss scholar Theodore Beza,

fulfilling a wish Warner had voiced to him. 83 In the end, however, Ali Bey did not revise his

work, and Şahin never completed his revisions, which seem not to have been consulted for

any subsequent translation.

The End of the Dutch Project

Warner had died in Turkey in 1665, before Ali Bey’s fair copy was finished. Then, crucially,

Laurens de Geer died in 1666. His heirs continued to support Comenius and apparently also

Şahin for a time as he revised Ali Bey’s Turkish Bible. But then Golius also died, and in June

1667 Johann Heinrich Hottinger, a Swiss Orientalist who would have provided new

expertise for the translation project, was killed in a boating accident before he could take up

his professorial duties in Leiden. De Geer had been the only money behind the Dutch

82
Cited in Cooper, p. 11; from The Christian Observer conducted by the members of the established church for
the year 1832 (London: J. Hatchard & Son, 1832), vol. 32, p. 255. URL: http://books.google.com/books?
id=7uARAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=christian+observer+1832&source=bl&ots=fELJGIakJL&sig=vp2gJ0
1nSw1Ov7lK9rXASrZBVt4&hl=en&ei=O8aUTNHNOsOKswbK1IFb&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&
ved=0CA8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=christian%20observer%201832&f=false.

83
Neudecker (2005), pp. 178ff.
 26
project, and Hottinger’s death was felt by Comenius as a judgment of God. Comenius did 84

not know that Ali Bey was eager to come to Europe to revise his work further, because Ali

had sent his letter to Basire in England, not to Comenius in Holland.

Comenius died in 1670. Contrary to what one writer has said, 85 he had not abandoned the

Turkish Bible because the translation was not good enough; rather, the project had proven to

be too complex for the time. A translation project involving a document as large as the Bible

requires scholarshi, and money, and both had now evaporated. Bible translation also

requires a contextualized grasp of cross-cultural communication. Immersed in Ottoman

ethnic realities, Ali Bey understood this; Comenius’ so-called universal philosophy did not.

In 1679 a plan to print Ali Bey’s Bible was revived by Christian Vladislav Nigrin who had

been hired to go through Comenius’ unpublished papers, but no Orientalist could be found

to finish the revisions of Şahin. The person who might have revised it, Ali Bey himself, had

also died by this time in Turkey (ca. 1677).

Failure to print the Turkish Bible in the 17th century has been attributed to the very small

pool of Turkish linguists in Europe at the time. 86 Another factor was the project’s dependence

on private patronage. There was no church support that might have continued the project

beyond the lives of individual benefactors. Ali Bey’s Bible was finally printed only after the

Bible societies were founded in the 19th century.

Funda Toprak has published a word-for-word transcription of the Four Gospels in Ali Bey’s

draft translation (Leiden ms. 390d); her detailed glossary of his vocabulary is a significant

contribution to 17th-century Turkish linguistics. 87 A full glossary of Ali Bey’s vocabulary will

be available when the transcription of his full text is completed at OslamlicaKelam.net.

For a biography of Ali Bey and his times see Appendix IV. For an essay on Ottoman slavery

see Appendix V.

84
Malcolm (2007a), p. 354.

85
Mike W. Stroope, “The legacy of John Amos Comenius,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 29 (4):
204-208 (2005); for this statement, p. 207.

86
Malcolm (2007a), p. 360ff.

87
Toprak, op.cit., pp. 351-644.
 27
1665-73 – Mezamir (Psalms 1-14), by Ali Ufkî, in manuscript.

The only known manuscript of Ali Bey’s Mezamir88 was on display at the Sabancı Museum in

Istanbul in June-September 2010. Cem Behar’s study of this manuscript begins with a careful

introduction in Turkish on the life of Ali Ufkî, which he has now updated in another essay

on Ottoman music history.89 His study of the Mezamir includes the 14 psalms in the

romanized transliteration used today by Turkish scholars, as well as staff notation in both

facsimile and modern form.90 Each of Ali Bey’s musical psalms is longer and more poetic

than the Psalms of his Bible translation. For example, the simple language of Psalm 8 in Ali

Bey’s Bible finished in 1665: “Ey Efendimiz Allah Teâlâ, cümle yerde ismiŋ ne kadar azimdir ki

izzetiŋi gökler üzerine koduŋ”” (O Lord, our Master, how magnificent is your name in all the

earth that you have fixed your glory above the skies) may be compared with the version in

the Mezamir:

Ey Perverdigârımız Hakk Teâlâ O Highest and Righteous, our Protector

Ne kadar mucib ü azîm ü a’lâ How gracious and magnificent and exalted
İsm-i izzetin bahr ü berde Is your glorious name on the face of the sea
Semâ üstünde hem cemi’ yerde. Over the sky and in all the earth.
Considerations of rhyme, meter and the tastes of a Muslim audience influenced the way Ali

Bey turned the psalm into a hymn.

Ali Bey adapted the tunes from the Genevan Psalter and set them to the Turkish modal

system. It has been speculated that he knew the Genevan Psalter from his training as a

church musician in Lwów, but there is no documentary evidence for this. It is more likely

that he received a copy from one of his European friends (see Appendix IV).

Turkish musicians honor Santûrî Ali Ufkî, the master of the santur (zither), for his larger and

earlier work, Mecmûa-i Sâz ü Söz.91 Recently another of his musical manuscripts has been

88
Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Suppl. Turc. 472; cf. Behar (1990), p. 47.

89
Cem Behar, “Wojciech Bobowski (Ali Ufkî): Hayatı ve eserleri (1610?-1675), in Musıkiden Müziğe — Osmanlı
Türk Müziği: Gelenek ve Modernlik İçinde (İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2005), pp. 17-56.

90
In Behar (1990) the transcriptions are on pp. 61-85, words and music in modern staff notation on pp. 87-92;
and the manuscript fascimile on pp. 95-104.

91
Elçin (1976).
discovered.92 In its time it was the first collection of Ottoman music written in western staff

notation, datable to the early 1650s. Mezamir seems to have been a later work, though its date

is uncertain. Thanks to Turkish music historians, there has been more critical study of the

texts of Ali Bey the musician than those of Ali Bey the Bible translator.

Ali Bey worked on these musical psalms toward the end of his life. The timing is evidence of

his enduring interest in the Bible. He appears to have sustained a commitment to

contextualize the religion of his youth in an Islamic medium even after his Bible translation

was finished. Several CD’s include renditions of his Psalms. 93 Strikingly, these arrangements

create a spiritual atmosphere similar to 17th-century Puritan hymnody. But Mezamir cannot

have been intended for a Christian audience. It was Ottoman chamber music for an

evening’s entertainment in the cultured and mystical ambience of Der Saadet, the Gate of

Bliss, also known as Istanbul.

1659 – Kütüb-ü pâklerin Türkî'de bir nümûdar-ı yahşi: Kadîs Yuhanna Resûlüŋ Türkî
zebâna mütercem olmuş üç risâlesidir / Specimen turcicum S. S. Scripturæ: sive, tres
epistolæ S. Johannis apostoli turcice redditæ (A good sample of the holy books in
Turki: Three letters of St. John the Apostle translated in the Turki language). Translated
by William Seaman. London: Jacob Flesher.

1666 – İncil-i Mukaddes : yani lisan-ı Türkî’ye tercüme olunan bizim Rabbimiz Yesû
Mesih’iŋ yeŋi ahid ve vasiyeti (Holy Gospel: or the new covenant and testament of our
Lord Jesus Christ translated into Turki). Translated by William Seaman. Oxford: Henry
Hall, Printer to the University.

Seaman’s İncil-i Mukaddes, preceded by his booklet of the epistles of John, was the first

Turkish New Testament ever printed, though its circulation was limited and its afterlife

short. For various reasons it is not accorded the same honor as Ali Bey’s translation. It is the

only Turkish translation that ever used the Aramaic Yesû instead of the Arabic İsâ as the

name of Jesus. An invocation of the Holy Trinity is written in Arabic on the top of the title

page: “Bismi-'llâh ve'l-İbn ve'l-Rûhü'l-Kudüs el-Allah el-Vâhid.”

92
Cem Behar, Saklı Mecmua; Ali Ufkî Bibliothéque Nationale de France'taki (Turc 292) Yazması (İstanbul: Yapi
Kredi Yayinlari, 2008).

93
Ali Ufki, by Ahmet Kadri Rizeli (Sony BMG Music Entertainment Türkiye Ticaret A.Ş., 2009 - URL:
http://www.sonybmg.com.tr/album.php?al=1192) ; also an earlier version entitled Ali Ufki Eserleri. Other CD’s
include One God: Songs and Hymns from Orient and Occident, by Mehmet Cemal Yeşilçay (Ludi Musici); Sacred
Bridges, by the King's Singers and Sarband; The Psalms of Ali Ufki, by Dünya Ensemble and Guests, directed by
Mehmet Ali Şanlıkol.
William Seaman (1606-1680) was an Oxford graduate and clergyman who spent a few years

(ca. 1628-31) in Constantinople as chaplain to the English ambassador. He cannot have been

there as late as 1639, as is sometimes stated.94 Seaman was the pioneer of Turkish studies in

England. His first publication was an English translation of a Turkish history of the early

Ottoman period (1652), and his crowning work was a five-volume grammar, Grammatica

linguæ turcicæ (1670). The latter was printed in Ottoman characters, unlike earlier European

grammars of Turkish.

In 1659 Seaman arranged for the printing of his Turkish “sample” of the Bible from John’s

epistles, after which he was recruited by Robert Boyle to translate a Puritan catechism,

printed in 1661.95 Boyle was a key figure “in the circle of Samuel Hartlib, whose millenarian

convictions included belief in the imminent conversion to Christianity of the Muslims and a

determination to hasten the process. In England the plan was fostered by Hartlib himself,

Henry Oldenburg, John Durie, and above all Robert Boyle…”96

Seaman emerged as the best English candidate to translate the New Testament, but this

proved to be a bridge too far for him. It is one thing to translate a historical work from a

foreign language into one’s mother tongue, which requires only a passive knowledge of the

foreign language. It is quite another matter to translate from one’s mother tongue into a

second language, which requires a high level of idiomatic and cultural fluency. Seaman had

lived in Turkey for only a short time and could not possibly have acquired this level of

fluency.

Seaman had already drafted the Acts of the Apostles and one of the Gospels when he was

forestalled by news from Holland that “Warner’s” (=Ali Bey’s) Turkish Bible was almost

finished. In late 1664 Seaman resumed his work because the Dutch project appeared to be

delayed and it was thought in England that it involved only the Old Testament, though we

now know that Ali Bey had already finished his complete draft of the Bible. When this news

reached England, the Hartlib circle decided it would be well in any case to have two draft

94
Malcolm (2007a), p, 339; Alastair Hamilton, “William Seaman,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biopgraphy
(Oxford University Press, 2004-2010). URL: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/24986. The end of the
ambassador’s tenure in Constantinople, not Seaman’s was 1639.

95
Hannah Neudecker, “Bobowski’s Turkish translation of the Anglican catechism” (forthcoming).

96
Quoted in Malcolm (2007a), p, 339.
translations of the Turkish New Testament to compare. 97 This seems to have set a precedent:

the Turkish Bible has never been confined to one translation alone, not even in its first

decade in the 1660s.

Seaman secured financial backing from English merchants trading in Turkey, and Boyle

decided to make up any shortfall himself; so the New Testament proceeded to press. 98 Proof

sheets were printed in Oxford beginning in November 1664, after which the presses ran

slowly, a few sheets each week, until June 1666. The long printing process appears to have

been due to a shortage of lead type for Ottoman Turkish: proofs had to be sent to Seaman in

London or his country home before the next sheets could be set in type in Oxford.

Henry Oldenburg had been passing news between Holland and England on the progress of

the two translations. In February 1666 Comenius proposed to Oldenburg that the printing of

the Bible be coordinated, using Seaman’s New Testament and Ali Bey’s Old Testament.

Collaboration came to quick end, however, when the Dutch scholar Golius, already

uncertain about the quality of Ali Bey’s work, examined Seaman’s New Testament and

“considered its language to be so artificial as to be virtually incomprehensible.” 99 His

Armenian employee Şahin Kandi told him that it was worthless and would not be

understood by a Turk.100

Several libraries still catalog Seaman’s İncil-i Mukaddes erroneously as a Nogai (Tatar)

translation from the North Caucasus, but the mistake has been deemed understandable

considering how contrived Seaman’s Ottoman Turkish was. 101 The Turkish grammar he

published later was also criticised during his lifetime: “It lacks any form of systematic

approach to Turkish, contains numerous errors, and includes a thoroughly unreliable guide

to the pronunciation of the language.”102

97
Malcolm (2007a), p, 341. Malcolm’s article is the most thorough treatment of the Seaman translation.

98
Malcolm (2007a), p. 342

99
Roper, p. 4

100
Malcolm (2007a), p. 350.

101
Roper, p. 5; Riggs, p. 237.

102
Hamilton, op.cit.
 31
In retrospect Seaman’s failure seems inevitable. He did his translation in England,

apparently without access to native speakers of Turkish. Bible translation would not be done

this way today. It always begins with a draft by a native speaker of the target language and

involves a team approach. Seaman had no team and his knowledge of Turkish was passive.

Ali Bey, by contrast, had lived in Turkey for 30 years when he began his translation, did all

his work in Turkey, had access to Haki’s draft translation, which had also been done in

Turkey, and through his experience as a court translator had learned a plain and fluent style

that tended to conceal evidence of his foreignness. Malcolm attempts a speculative defense

of Seaman’s Turkish as merely the simplified language of the people instead of the cultured

Turkish which Golius and Şahin advocated. This is untenable. Malcolm does not claim to

have examined Seaman’s style or vocabulary. A comparative examination of the two texts

demonstrates that it is Ali Bey’s translation that is the simple and conversational one. Even

Seaman’s title for the New Testament sounds contrived.

In both Holland and England financial backing for the Turkish Bible translations was

provided by merchants — men who owned sailing ships, traded in Mediterranean ports and

were familiar with the Turkish coast. Some copies of Seaman’s New Testament were sent to

Smyrna in 1672, but “given the poor Turkish of the edition, and the general reluctance of

Muslims to accept or read Christian texts anyway, it is unlikely that many found their way

into the hands or the libraries of Turkish readers.” 103 Hanna Şamlı, a Syrian Christian, copied

Seaman's translation out by hand (see below, 1680), so at least one copy arrived somehow at

his doorstep. Despite the more lasting influence of Ali Bey’s superior translation, Seaman’s

New Testament was the first printed book of the Turkish Bible to arrive in Ottoman territory,

even if we have no evidence that any Turk ever read it.

The İncil-i Mukaddes is available in microform at a few university libraries in the USA and the

original book in Cambridge and Leiden. One was sold for a high price at auction in 1995. 104

Selections from Seaman’s translation were reprinted in Germany in the mid-18th century for

use in a Christian training program (see below) but never again since then. Seaman’s true

legacy in the history of the Turkish Bible is that his publications pioneered the creation of

lead type for Ottoman Turkish. At the time there was no printing press in Turkey.
103
Roper, p. 8

104
http://www.christies.com/lotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=246244
 32

1680 – İncil-i Mukaddes yani lisan-ı türkî'ye tercüme olunan bizim Rabbimiz Yesû Mesihiŋ
yeŋi ahd-i vesâyeti. New Testament manuscript in two folios, 171 and 222 pages
respectively, in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. Copied by Hanna b. Neta Shamlu
from Seaman's New Testament (1666).

Hanna Şamlı (“John the Syrian”) tells us in a half-page afterword to the Four Gospels that he

wrote it down between 14 August and 18 September 1680, asking Christians to pray for him

as he worked. I conclude that he copied Seaman's book directly, because the last page of the

Gospel of John which I have seen is an exact copy of Seaman's printed text of 1666; even

Seaman's strange spellings and oddities are the same. Hanna does not tell us where he was

when he wrote this manuscript; presumably he acquired a copy of Seaman's New Testament

in Syria.

Why would Hanna have made a manuscript from a printed book? Perhaps he had never

seen a Bible in Turkish before and having borrowed it and promised to return it he wanted a

copy to keep so made a manuscript from it. Hanna gives no indication that he knew of Ali

Bey's manuscript.

Another partial New Testament in the Turkish collection at the Bibliotheque Nationale has

been dated by Blochet to the 1830's on the basis of the handwriting. 105

1692 – Emsale-i Süleymân. A Turkish manuscript of the Proverbs of Solomon in the hand of
Hanna b. Neta Shamlu. 40 pp., 31 x 23.5 cm. Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.

The German Oriental Institutes

Though Protestants were disappointed by the Catholic victory over the Turks in 1683, their

engagement with Jews and Muslims continued. In 1724 a Protestant institute for Jewish

studies was founded in Halle. The Institutum Judaicum was the first of several such schools

that taught Christian apologetics with the goal of converting Jews. For the next two centuries

Jewish evangelism was a strong movement in Europe, whose character was transmuted into

programs of interreligious studies only after the Nazi genocide against the Jews. The first

Institutum Judaicum also had a Muslim focus, printing Bibles, Scripture portions, language

manuals and evangelistic tracts in Arabic, Hindustani (Urdu), Persian, and Turkish, as well

105
E. Blochet, Catalogue des manuscrits turques / Bibliotheque Nationale, p. 166f. (available from the library).
 33
as Hebrew and Yiddish, under the tutelage of Johann Heinrich Callenberg (1694-1760). It is

unclear whether these tracts were ever distributed to Muslims or whether the Institutum

Judaicum ever sent any of its graduates to Muslim cities.

1735 – Lucæ Evangelium Turkice (The Gospel of Luke in Turkish). Halle: Typographia
Orientali Instituti Judaici et Muhammedici (Oriental Publishing House of the Institute
for Jewish and Muhammedan Affairs). 186 pages.

Callenberg’s Gospel of Luke was a reprint of one book from Seaman’s Turkish New

Testament. Luke was followed in 1747 by Pauli Apostoli Epistola ad Romanos Turcice 106 (Letter

of the Apostle Paul to the Romans in Turkish), in 1749 by the Acts of the Apostles, and in the

1750s by the Gospel of John, the First Epistle of John, and Hebrews. 107

Callenberg also wrote a 48-page booklet entitled: “Short account of an essay, to bring the

Jewish nation to the knowledge and practice of the truth of the Gospel and his endeavour to

promote the conversion of the Mahommedans to Christianity” (1732). The work was

reprinted many times; the English version first appeared in 1734.

1739 – Quatuor prima capita Geneseos turcice et latine ex gemino Pentateuchi Mosaici mss.
Codice Turcico eruit, Latine vertit, notulasque adspersit Nicholas Guillelmus
Schoederus. (The first four chapters of Genesis in Turkish and Latin excerpted from two
Turkish codices of the Pentateuch of Moses, translated into Latin, with notes added by
Nicklaus Wilhelm Schroeder). Lipsiæ [Leipzig]: Literis Takkianis. 40 pp.

This booklet comprises a preface by N.W. Schroeder of Marburg and 28 pages of Ali Bey’s

Turkish text of Genesis 1-4 with Latin in parallel columns. Schroeder tells us that his father

had purchased in Amsterdam two handwritten “codices” of Ali Bey’s translation of the five

books of Moses, one of them with vowel points. Schroeder’s mention of these “books” of Ali

Bey’s manuscript raises questions about how many copies once existed and in what form.

The only copies known today are the ones mentioned by Ali Bey himself in his letter to Isaac

Basire and preserved in Leiden and Amsterdam. Except for Schroeder’s comment there is no

evidence of copies made later. A plausible scenario is that Schroeder’s father bought parts of

106
A library listing in WorldCat.org is evidence that Seaman’s New Testament was the text for Callenberg’s
Turkish translations: “Texte de l'ed. du N.T. trad. en nogay (dialecte turc du nord du Caucase) par William
Seaman, Oxford, Henry Hall, 1666, repris et ed. par Johann Heinrich Callenberg.“ The reference to Nogay
Turkish is in error but the reference to Seaman is probably not.

107
Luke may have been preceded by Matthew in 1735 but I have not found a library record of this book.
 34
the incomplete secretarial copies of Ali Bey’s draft manuscript, the ones that had been done

in Istanbul in 1665 and could have been bound later in smaller codices, section by section. 108

Schroeder’s introduction reveals a limited knowledge of Ali Bey’s life based on a version

published in 1690 by Thomas Hyde (1636-1703), an English Orientalist at Oxford. 109

Schroeder repeats Hyde’s assertion that Ali Bey was first dragoman (chief translator) under

Sultan Mehmet IV. He also leaps to the unwarranted conclusion that Ali Bey’s desire to move

to England and return to the Christian faith, as noted by Hyde, had actually taken place. 110

Schroeder claims that some of Ali Bey’s works had been suppressed by the Turks—a

statement for which there is no other evidence in the historical record.

However brief, Schroeder’s booklet is the earliest printing of Ali Bey’s text, discounting the

single proof sheet of Isaiah printed in Leiden in 1662. Appendix III(b) shows a brief

transliterated section of Schroeder’s text of Ali Bey’s Genesis. But apparently Schroeder

never printed the rest of the manuscripts in his possession. Proximity of time and place with

Callenberg’s publication of individual books of the Turkish Bible from Seaman’s İncil-i

Mukaddes suggests that Schroeder may have had a connection (or been in competition) with

the printing operation at the Institutum Judaicum. There is a hint of this in Schroeder’s

preface where he comments that Ali Bey had lived “quite constantly among the Turks

themselves” (apud ipsos Turcas frequentioribus). Perhaps this was an oblique way of criticising

Callenberg’s use of the translation of Seaman, who had only briefly inhabited the diplomatic

quarter in Constantinople and had never lived “quite constantly among the Turks.”

Writing in 1825, Ebenezer Henderson mentioned a new printing of Ali Bey’s text in Berlin

and showed an example that corresponds exactly to the first part of Schroeder’s text of Ali

108
Notably, MS VI H 2 archived in Amsterdam is an incomplete fair copy of Ali Bey’s manuscript that lacks the
Pentateuch, Apocrypha, and New Testament.

109
Th. Hyde, ed. Tractatus Alberti Bobobii de Turcarum Liturgia, peregrinatione meccana, circumcisione,
aegrotarum visitatione, &c. (Oxford, 1690). Printed in English as Albertus Bobovius, “A treatise concerning the
Turkish liturgy,” in Four Treatises Concerning the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of the Mahometans (London:
J. Darby for B. Lintoit, 1712), pp. 109-150, with Hyde’s preface on pp. 105-108. URL:
http://books.google.com/books?
id=gWEuAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bobovius+treatise+concerning+the+turkish+liturgy+1712&source
=bl&ots=nAYpzx7Hca&sig=7ajdjN_2wUp2IDBd9R14SnagoJI&hl=en&ei=QdSRTKDiE9HMswbQvYH5CQ&sa=X&oi
=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false.

110
Many thanks to Ashley Parrott, who translated Schroeder’s preface for me.
 35
Bey’s Genesis. 111
Henderson does not provide a reference, but it seems that Schroeder’s

booklet had been (or was about to be) reprinted in Berlin. I have not been able to locate this

edition, and it is uncertain that it ever existed.

The Bible Societies

The Turkish translation projects of the 17th century had depended on private benefactors. In

the 18th century Callenberg’s Oriental institute had limited resources and managed to print

only Bible selections. A sustainable program of Turkish Bible publication began only with

the Bible societies of the 19th century. The British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) was

founded in London in 1804. 112 It sponsored and funded Turkish Bible translation for the next

two centuries, beginning with the discovery of Ali Bey’s manuscript in Leiden by Robert

Pinkerton (1780-1859).113 According to a BFBS report addressed to its patron almost 20 years

later, this happened as follows:

In the year 1814 Mr. (now Dr.) Pinkerton, being on a tour of the Netherlands, sent
information to London, respecting a Turkish translation of the whole Bible in
manuscript, which had been deposited for a century and a half in the archives of
the University of Leyden. Your lordship cannot have forgotten the delight with
which this intelligence was received by every biblical scholar and every friend of
religion, more especially when it was stated that by a venerable nobleman, Baron
von Diez, who had formerly been the [P]russian 114 Ambassador at Constantinople,
and was a competent Turkish scholar, and whose character stood high for piety
and zeal for the propagation of Divine truth, that “the translation was accurate,
and the style most excellent,” and that he himself would edit the manuscript and
superintend its printing. To convey the whole inspired word of God into the very
strongholds of the false prophet, was a prospect that filled with joy every Christian
heart; and it seemed, with any desecration of the word, truly providential that this
manuscript should have been so long prepared, and have survived the vicissitudes
111
Ebenezer Henderson, The Turkish New Testament Incapable of Defence, and the true principles of Biblical
translation vincidated: in answer to Professor Lee’s “Remarks on Dr. Henderson’s Appeal to the Bible Society, on
the subject of the Turkish version of the New Testament, printed at Paris in 1819. (London: C. & J. Rivington,
1825), pp. 92f. URL: http://books.google.com/books?
id=13IsAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ebenezer+Henderson+Turkish&source=bl&ots=13j0UQ8X0j&sig=xr
D5mVOUTh2pReQP86IAoxVUetY&hl=en&ei=x0eHTOXcNISPswaWkrCbCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&res
num=2&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false.

112
Steer, op.cit.

113
Gerald H. Anderson, ed., Biographical Dictionary of Christian Missions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B.
Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 537f.

114
“Heinz Friedirch von Diez,” Das Enzykopädie des Islam,
http://www.eslam.de/begriffe/d/diez_heinrich_friedrich_von.htm.
 36
of years, and the conflagrations and sackings of the late [Napoleonic] war, till the
return of peace, and the institution of Bible Societies afforded facilities for its
printing and circulation.115

The BFBS was impressed with Ali Bey’s translation because it sounded like classical Turkish

but was simple and idiomatic. This shows that it is an error to say that the old translations

were wooden and incomprehensible — a prejudice of the post-Ottoman era. Both Ali Bey in

the 17th century and the Bible Societies in the 19th century recognized the importance of

contemporary vocabulary and style in Bible translation.

In 1813 the BFBS spawned a Russian Bible Society in St. Petersburg, which printed a Turkish

New Testament a few years later (see Chapter 4 below). The American Bible Society (ABS)

was founded in 1814 but did not begin to interest itself in the Ottoman world until 1836. 116

The earliest American books in the Ottoman languages were printed at the printing house of

the Church Missionary Society (CMS, Anglican). This press had been established on Malta in

1815 after Britain occupied the strategic Mediterranean island during the Napoleonic Wars.

As for the BFBS’s first Turkish project, its investigations led it to the conclusion that the only

printing press for Ottoman Turkish that could handle a large book was in Paris.

1819 – Kitab ül-ahd el-cedid el-mensub ila Rabbina İsa el-Mesih(The Book of the New
Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ). Ali Bey’s New Testament in Turkish, edited by
Jean Daniel Kieffer. Printed at the Imprimérie Royal in Paris by the BFBS. 483 pp. 13 cm
x 22 cm

This rare book can be found today in Leiden, Weimar, the British Library, the French

National Library, the Ramseyer Collection at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, and in

Turkey at the National Library (Milli Kütüphane), the Seyfetti Özege Bağış Kitapları collection

at Atatürk University in Erzurum, and a private collection in Ankara. Another copy was

offered in 2012 at a very high price by an antique bookseller. It is printed on rough cream-

colored paper in a fine typeface and mostly without vowel points. As befits a holy book

intended for the use of Muslims, the titles of this and all the 19th-century Bibles were written

in Arabic, though the rest of the book was in Ottoman Turkish. (After the primary title itself

115
Christian Observer, op.cit., pp. 255-59.

116
Peter J. Wosh, Spreading the Word: The Bible business in nineteenth-century America (Cornell University
Press, 1994); cf. http://www.americanbible.org/pages/about-more-history.
 37
the remainder of the title page features Turkish grammar, but almost every word is from

Arabic.) In the Muslim world holy books are recognizable as holy by their Arabic titles.

In 1814 the preparation of Ali Bey’s manuscript for publication had been assigned by the

new British Bible Society to Baron H.F. von Diez, but when he died in 1817 Jean Daniel

Kieffer (1767-1833) was engaged to continue the project in July of that year. Kieffer was

professor of Turkish at the Collège de France and interpreter to the French king. He qualified

for these positions during his tenure as a diplomatic officer, serving in Constantinople from

1796 to 1803 and perfecting his Turkish while living for three years in the Yedikule prison

after Napoleon had annoyed the sultan by invading Egypt in 1798. Kieffer's Turkish-French

dictionary, published in 1835,117 was the standard until Redhouse’s dictionary superseded it

in 1855. As professor of Turkish Kieffer taught two men who became Bible translators,

Wilhelm Schauffler and Elias Riggs.

A native of Strassbourg, Kieffer had trained for the Christian ministry, but his linguistic

talents led him into the diplomatic service. He was a member of the consistory of the

Evangelical (Lutheran) Church of France and served the BFBS as their principal agent in

France.118 One biographical sketch comments that the ten years spent by Kieffer on Bible

translation was “the great work of his life.”119

Von Diez and Kieffer made changes to the divine names in Ali Bey’s Leiden manuscript (not

consulting the copy with Şahin’s corrections, as far as we know). They standardized Allah

and Rabb as equivalents of Elohim and YHWH, respectively.120 Malcolm suggests that

Kieffer’s revisions

117
Reprinted in 2010 by Nabu Press: Dictionnaire Turc-Français: A L'Usage des Agents diplomatiques et
Consulaires, des Commerçants, des Navigateurs, et Autres Voyageurs dans l e Levant. 822 pp. ISBN:
9781147731361. See also

118
URL: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Daniel_Kieffer; http://turquie-culture.fr/pages/turc-et-langues-
turques/livres-et-documents-sur-le-turc/kieffer-et-bianchi-dictionnaire-turc-francais-1835-1837.html

119
URL: http://turquie-culture.fr/pages/turc-et-langues-turques/biographies/kieffer-jean-daniel.html

120
See the discussion below under Kieffer’s NT of 1819, also Appendix II for a comparison of Ali Bey’s and
Kieffer’s use of the divine names in Genesis 1-2. I have compared Toprak’s transcription of Ali Bey’s draft
manuscript of the Gospels and Schroeder’s 1739 edition of Genesis 1-4, which is Ali Bey’s text, with Kieffer’s
Bible of 1827.
 38
were mostly interpretative, based on comparisons with the Hebrew and Greek and
with other modern translations, not corrections of erroneous Turkish… [This]
suggests that the criticisms of Golius and Shahin Kandi [had been] either too
severe, or also based more on interpretative considerations. 121

Such a statement is valid as far as the manuscripts of 1664-65 are concerned in their

relationship to the 1819 New Testament. As we will see, however, extensive corrections were

made in the 1827 Turkish Bible, especially in the New Testament, with Kieffer actually

garbling Ali Bey’s excellent Turkish, as a result of pressure from British critics. In the Old

Testament Kieffer made relatively fewer corrections to Ali Bey’s text.

Mistranslations in Kieffer’s New Testament were alleged by Ebenezer Henderson (1784-

1858), who accused him of failing to correct Ali Bey on a number of points, most of them

theological in nature. The title of the Gospel of Matthew, for example, is Hazret-i İsa el-

Mesihiŋ İncil-i Şerifi Mattanıŋ Kavlince (The Holy Gospel of the Glorious Jesus Christ

according to Matthew), where both the honorific Hazret and the title İncil-i Şerif carry Islamic

overtones. A raging debate followed between Henderson, 122 then working for the Russian

Bible Society, and Samuel Lee (1783–1852),123 professor of Arabic at Cambridge. Lee

defended Ali Bey against Henderson’s charge that his translation had been denied

publication in the 17th century because it contained “a mass of unholy matter,” 124 which

would naturally occur, according to Henderson, in a translation produced by a Muslim. Lee

doubted that the quality of the translation had been to blame for the Dutch failure to bring

the manuscript to press. He reminded Henderson that Ali Bey had “spared no pains in

forwarding the cause of Christianity as far as his literary labours would allow.” 125 Lee

121
Malcolm , p. 360, n. 96.

122
Henderson, op.cit.; see pp. 44ff. for his objections to Ali Bey’s words for the divine names, etc.

123
Remarks on Dr. Henderson’s Appeal to The Bible society on the subject of the Turkish version of the New
Testament printed at Paris in 1819 to which is added, An Appendix, containing certain documents on the
character of that version. Cambridge: J. Smith, Printer to the University, 1824. URL:
http://books.google.com/books?
id=bTgHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ebenezer+Henderson+Turkish&source=bl&ots=Z04HtxiQoW&sig
=SXfBqFQckekg15rcx96RvgzzukI&hl=en&ei=x0eHTOXcNISPswaWkrCbCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resn
um=5&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

124
Quoted by Lee (1824), p. 6.

125
Lee (1824), p. 4.
 39
believed that Ali Bey’s Bible “exhibits uncommon care and fidelity, in the full expression of

every scriptural truth.”126

Henderson objected especially to Ali Bey’s way of handling the divine names. Often he had

used two or more Arabic words with Islamic overtones, such as Allâh Teaa laa (God Most

High) and Cenâb Bârî (Glorious Creator), where the Greek had only the one word Theos. He

had also written Hazret-i İsa almost every time the name of Jesus occurred. Henderson

thought Allah and İsa alone were required in a literal translation, but Lee countered that

Allah is followed 99 times out of a hundred by Teaa laa in Muslim speech and literary diction.

This cultural feature of Muslim diction was not taken as an argument in its favor by

Henderson.

An uproar in the English churches accompanied the debate, and the BFBS suspended

distribution of the 1819 New Testament after 100 copies had been sold. Kieffer patiently

revised the book, consulting Brunton’s Kakass (Tatar) of 1813, and Henry Martyn's Persian of

1810, making 49 corrections of the theological vocabulary (though Henderson had wanted

many more corrections). When the Old Testament was printed with the New Testament in

1827, Cenâb Bârî disappeared from Ali Bey’s Bible as a translation for Elohim, and Allâh

Teaa laa was retained only where the Hebrew reads El Elyon (God Most High), as in Genesis

14:18. In poetic sections Hakk Teaa laa was retained as a translation of “The Most High” (e.g.

Psalm 78), and a variant Arabic form, Müte’âl, was widely used as well (e.g. Psalm 56),

apparently without objection. In general, however, Elohim and Theos would be translated

henceforth simply as Allah without supplementary honorific titles in all Turkish Bible

translations.

Henderson had objected also to Taŋrı (“Tengri”), the sky-god in the pre-Islamic culture of the

ancient Turks, because (oddly) it appeared in no dictionary he knew; so Kieffer dutifully

eliminated this word also. Ali Bey had copied Haki in using the theonyms Taŋrı Te'aâ lâ, and

even Taŋrı Allah Te'aâ lâ. As a Jew who knew the Torah, Haki also knew that he needed

multiple words for God, but did his solutions to the problem reflect common usage in

Ottoman Turkish among Muslims and Christians also? This is doubtful and deserves further

research in Yusuf Emre and Turkish writings up to the time of Haki and Ali Bey. After the

126
Lee (1824), p. 5.
 40
New Testament of 1819 Tanrı never appeared as a word for God in the Turkish Bible, even in

the Kitabı Mukaddes of the Turkish republican period; with lower case t it was reserved for

‘gods’. Tanrı was revived in the contemporary-language New Testament (Müjde) of 1987 and

the draft booklets in the late 1970’s. By this time there were political reasons for its use.

Saying Tanrı instead of Allah was a way of appealing to the new secularist audience by

conforming to the de-islamizing policies of the Türk Dil Kurumu. The TDK prefers its

reconstructions of the language of the ancient Turks (Öztürkçe) to words of Arabic and

Persian origin.

At Henderson’s urging Ali Bey’s Hazret was also eliminated from the names of the prophets,

as was Kuds-ü Şerif, for which Ûrişalîm (Jerusalem) was substituted. Silvestre de Sacy, the

most celebrated Orientalist of the time (1758-1838), argued that Yesu should be substituted

for İsa, as in some of the Oriental churches, but his view was not adopted. 127 In 1826 the BFBS

approved Kieffer’s revised version for publication. It also decided to exclude the Old

Testament Apocrypha (Deuterocanonica) in Ali Bey’s manuscript. It is unclear whether

Kieffer had prepared these books for press.

Thus, although it cannot be said that Kieffer’s Bible was fully de-islamized (the names that

were accepted, such as Allah, Rabb, and İsa , are Arabic words, after all), some of the elegant

Arabisms that characterize the spiritual language of Islamic devotion were eliminated.

Two extended examples of Ali Bey’s usage as compared with Kieffer’s version are presented

in Appendix III. They show that in the 1819 version he changed single words or occasional

confusing inflexions but seldom tampered with Ali Bey’s form or style. It is therefore

remarkable that, when he edited the 1819 version for inclusion in the Turkish Bible of 1827,

Kieffer consistently revised Ali Bey’s syntax and grammar in what appear to be deliberate

violations of correct Turkish. In place of Ali Bey’s conversational expressions, Kieffer

substituted heavily literal translations, mimicking Greek and European syntax and grammar

in ways that can only be described as garbled Turkish. For example:

1) The 1827 version almost always introduces direct speech with dedi ki (he said), even

though Kieffer knew that as a rule dedi should appear at the end of direct speech. Ali Bey

had usually done it correctly in 1664, and Kieffer himself had preserved Ali Bey’s syntax in

127
Henderson, p. 69.
 41
the 1819 version. This sentence from John 13:25, where John asks Jesus which one of the

twelve apostles will betray him, appears in the three versions as follows: “ol dahi Hazret-i

İsanıŋ göğsüne eğilip oŋa ya rabb kimdir dedi” (1664, 1819); “ol dahi İsanıŋ göğsüne eğilip

oŋa dedi ki ya rabb kimdir” (1827). This is a small matter in one sentence but becomes

annoying when the reader encounters it in almost every conversation throughout the entire

Bible.

2) In John 20:29 Jesus says, “Ne mutlu görmeden inananlara” (1664, 1819), but Kieffer

changes it to read “Ne mutlu onlara ki görmediler ve inandılar” (1827). The former is

natural Turkish, whereas the latter mimicks the European syntax of “How happy are those

who have not seen yet believed.” Kieffer must have known that he was garbling the

translation here.

3) In Matthew 13:28 Ali Bey, writing natural Turkish, has the farmer who is told about the

tares sown in the wheat field saying “Düşman işidir!” (It is the work of an enemy). In the

1827 version Kieffer changes it to “Bir düşman bunu etmişdir.” This is a word-for-word

representation of European diction in the expression, “An enemy has done this.”

4) In Matthew 15:34 where Jesus asks his disciples, “Ne kadar etmeğiŋiz var” in 1819, Kieffer

changes it to “Ne kadar etmekleriŋiz var” in 1827, thus mimicking the Greek plural, “posous

artous echete” (how many breads have ye). Turkish requires the singular: “how much

bread.” But it must also be said in Kieffer’s defense that it is sometimes he who corrects Ali

Bey’s own use of the offending plural form.

Such changes occur in almost every verse. Why would Kieffer have made these un-Turkish

adjustments to the correct wordings of the 1819 text? From his fine-tuning of Ali Bey's 1665

manuscript in the 1819 version we know that Kieffer knew Turkish well, but by 1827 it

appears that he was under such heavy pressure to stick so closely to the Greek in all matters

that it distorted his judgment. He seems to have thrown in the towel in order to give his

critics what they wanted and must have known that the 1827 Bible would now be a second-

rate translation.

A comparative study of the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of the Ali Bey Bibles of 1664,

1665, 1819 and 1827 awaits its researcher. Clearly something was lost when Ali Bey’s

translation was cleaned up, and not only in stylistic matters. In the theological debate that
 42
continues to this day, many would hold that Ali Bey’s usage reflected a viably contextualized

sense of the appropriate form of the divine names. Accommodating certain Islamic terms in

the translation of the names of God, the prophets, etc., cannot be avoided in Bible translation

in the languages of the Muslim world, and it can be argued that these accommodations

should be expanded, not decreased. Today there are translations that are returning to the

contextualizing principles of Ali Bey 350 years ago.

At the bottom of the controversy was Henderson’s commitment to literalism against Lee’s

translation theory that privileged the language of the target audience. Henderson protested

that the Bible Society should not have allowed Lee’s ideas in the door, and the same protest

continues to this day. In any case, decisions made in the mid-1820s, especially in the matter

of the divine names, set a standard for Turkish translations of the Bible.

It is regrettable that the BFBS did not accept the evaluation of the 1819 New Testament

solicited in Turkey by Robert Pinkerton. Soon after its publication he visited a certain

… Mr. Ruffin in Pera, who is acknowledged, by universal testimony here, to be the

most learned and skilful Turkish scholar in Constantinople, and to whom I had an
introduction from Professor Kieffer…. In reference to the translation, he said that
he had read about ten pages of it, and found the style pure and fluent; that it was
not in the pompous style of the Divan, a mixture of Arabic and Persian, but chaste
and elegant Turkish, which would be read with pleasure by the man of letters, and
understood by the lowest in society.128

Pinkerton then sought out another Turkish expert, a Russian diplomat, Mr. Fonton, who

suggested a few changes to the Gospel of Matthew but evaluated the book in glowing colors

as “a version which will be universally understood; the changes he proposes are few.”

Though it is notable that Pinkerton did not consult native Turkish speakers, these

evaluations raise questions in retrospect about the way Kieffer was forced into making

changes of style and syntax which qualified critics agreed were unnecessary.

1820-21 – The Four Gospels in manuscript. Translated by İsmail Ferruh. 269 pages.

128
Extracts from the Sixteenth Report of the British & Foreign Bible Society, “Extracts from the Rev. Dr.
Pinkerton’s Letters, on his late tour, undertaken at the request of the [BFBS], 1921, pp. 178f., italics mine. The
relevant letter is dated Constantinople, Oct. 7, 1819. URL: http://books.google.com/books?
id=IxsMAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA182&ots=GnFbM3RDHz&dq=1819%20turkish%20new
%20testament&pg=PA182#v=onepage&q=1819%20turkish%20new%20testament&f=false
 43
Located in the Bayezid Library in Istanbul, 129
this manuscript translation by a Sufi scholar

seems to have been inspired by wordings in Ali Bey’s translation, according to brief

comments on it by Sadık Yazar. İsmail Ferruh was a Crimean Tatar known for his Turkish

translations of a commentary on the Koran and of the seventh book of Rumi’s Mesnevî. He

was Ottoman ambassador in London for a short period (1798-1801) 130 and he died in Istanbul

in 1256 A.H. / 1841 C.E. 131 In a note at the end of the manuscript he claims to have translated

from an Arabic version in the year 1236 A.H. (1820-21 C.E.), 132 but he does not tell us why he

did so.

Sadık Yazar identifies several other manuscripts of small parts of the Bible 133 translated by

Muslim scholars whose motivation was to show how the Bible prophesied the coming of

Muhammad, but this motivation does not appear to have figured in İsmail Ferruh’s

translation. Some Sufis were interested in Jesus as a spiritual guide, and this manuscript

may represent this phenomenon.

If Sadık Yazar is correct that Ali Bey’s phrasings appear in this manuscript, İsmail Ferruh

must have been one of the first Turkish readers of Kieffer’s New Testament of 1819. As a

former diplomat in England he would have had early access, no doubt, to the 1819 version.

1827 – Kitab ül-ahd el-atik134 (The Book of the Old Testament) and Kitab ül-ahd el-cedid el-
mensub ila Rabbina İsa el-Mesih 135 (The Book of the New Testament of Our Lord Jesus
Christ), also titled as Biblia Turcica in library catalogues. One library identifies it as
129
Bayezid Collection, no. 51.

130
Mehmet Alaaddin Yalçınkaya , "İsmail Ferruh Efendi’nin Londra Büyükelçiliği ve Siyasi Faaliyetleri (1797-
1800)" in Pax-Ottomana: Studies in Memoriam Prof. Dr. Nejat Göyünç, ed. Kemal Çiçek (Haarlem / Ankara:
SOTA / Yeni Türkiye Yayınları, 2001), pp. 381-407.

131
This information is from Sadık Yazar, op.cit., who also mentions a partial manuscript of the Gospel of Mark in
the Süleymaniye Library, Donated Manuscripts no. 2518. Translator and date have not been determined. In a
note at the top of the manuscript Jesus is referred to as Efendimiz (Our Master), but it is unclear whether this
means the translator was an Ottoman Christian: “Ulemâ-yı Nasrâniyyece Hz. Îsâ Efendimiz semâvâta su’ûd
buyurduklarından otuz sene sonra Hz. Markos tarafından yazılmış İncil-i şerîfin tercümesidir” (This is a
translation of the Noble Gospel written by St. Mark who, according to Christian theologians, wrote 30 years
after Our Glorious Master Jesus ascended to the heavens).

132
Presumably this was the Roman Catholic translation of 1671 by Sergius Risi. A Protestant translation of the
New Testament in Arabic was first printed in 1860 by Eli Smith.

133
Süleymaniye Library, Ali Nihat Tarlan collection no. 144, folios 7b-60a, dated 1205 A.H. / 1790-91 C.E.,
apparently by an Athenian who embraced Islam; other manuscripts in the Süleymaniye entitled “Tercüme-i
Ba’z-ı Âyât-ı Zebûr ve Tevrat ve İncil,” “Tercüme-i Ba’z-ı Âyât-ı İncil,” and “Tercüme-i İncil.”
 44
follows: In the Arabic character. Translated by Albertus Bobovius or Ali Bey and revised
by H.F. von Diez and J.D. Kieffer. Printed in two volumes, Old Testament 984 pp., New
Testament 318 pp. 27 cm. Paris: British & Foreign Bible Society, at the Imprimérie
Royal.136 Print run: 5,000 copies.

This was the first complete Bible printed in Turkish, commonly but incorrectly called Ali

Bey’s Bible. Kieffer incorporated the first four books of Ali Bey’s Pentateuch as edited by H.F.

von Diez, along with a revised version of the 1819 New Testament, into the 1827 Bible. Given

the way it distorted Ali Bey’s work as already discussed (see 1819 above), the 1827 version

cannot really be called Ali Bey’s Bible. Readers in the 19th century called it “Kieffer's Bible”,

but it might also be said that it had become Ebenezer Henderson’s Bible, reflecting the

flames of criticism he had fanned in the British churches. The most lasting influence of this

Bible is that it standardized the use of Allah for the Hebrew Elohim and Rabb for YHWH,

using tanrı only for the plural gods of the nations, a pattern that went unchanged for the

next 150 years; whereas Ali Bey had used Tanrı for Elohim, Allah Teaa laa for YHWH, and ilâh

for the gods. Ali Bey’s equivalence between YHWH and Allah Teaa laa has never been

recovered in any Turkish translation. His insightful contribution to inter-religious

communication deserves reconsideration, because these two theonyms are the most glorious

names of God in their respective traditions.

The book has been digitalized by the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich. A handful of

copies are archived or held in private collections in Turkey and are sold occasionally by used

booksellers in Istanbul. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk owned the Turkish Bible of 1827, along with

134
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Digitale Bibliothek. Old Testament (298 MB), URL: http://www.bsb-muenchen-
digital.de/~web/web1022/bsb10224108/images/index.html?
digID=bsb10224108&pimage=1014&v=100&nav=0&l=de. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and Ruth contain
imaging errors in the downloadable PDF but can be read correctly online.

135
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Digitale Bibliothek. New Testament (107MB), URL: http://www.bsb-muenchen-
digital.de/~web/web1022/bsb10224109/images/index.html?
digID=bsb10224109&pimage=336&v=100&nav=0&l=de. The end of the Book of Revelation is missing.

136
On the title page of both the Old and New Testaments the title is followed by these words: ki ingilterreniŋ
ve saire rub-i meskûnuŋ etraf ve eknafına | kitab-ı mukaddesleriŋ intişarı için ingiliz memleketinde |
muntazam olan mecma'ıŋ masârif ile | tab olunmuşdur (printed with funds from the society organized for
the distribution of the holy book in England and other regions of the globe), and at the bottom of the page: fi
madinat Pariz el-mahrusat | bi darü'l-taba'at el-melkuttat el-mimarat | sene 1827 el-mesihiyya (in the city
of Paris the great metropolis at the royal printing house of engineering, in the year 1827 C.E.).
 45
two copies of the 1886 version. 137
One copy of the latter contains marginal notes in his hand.

The father of of the Turkish language reform read the Bible in Ottoman Turkish.

The printing did not include the deutero-canonical books (Apocrypha) which were part of

Ali Bey’s manuscript.138 If Kieffer left research notes or a manuscript of his own, these have

not been studied. Nor has there been a thorough comparative examination of Kieffer’s Bible

with his New Testament of 1819, let alone with Ali Bey’s manuscripts. Kieffer introduced

Arabic spellings of proper nouns (people and places) from the Arabic, where Ali Bey had

followed the Hebrew and Greek more closely, probably relying on the European versions.

For example, Kieffer wrote Cacele for Golgotha and Cilcal for Gilgal.139 His use of the Arabic

form Celil for Galilee survives in the Turkish Bible down to the present day, though now

written Celile.

Kieffer’s Bible features full vowel pointing — a change from the mostly unpointed New

Testament text of 1819. To produce the pointed text he may have worked from the secretarial

or “fair copy” of Ali Bey’s translation in the Leiden archives, which is pointed, but there are

indications that he may have compared the secretarial copy with the unpointed original in

Ali Bey’s hand as well.140 None of the later Turkish Bibles were pointed; so Kieffer’s Bible is
137
Atatürk's personal library is preserved at the Anıt Kabir, his mausoleum in Ankara:
http://www.tsk.tr/anitkabir/kutup/t.html. The 1827 and 1886 Bibles are listed under T for Tevrat. If Atatürk
owned the New Testament of 1933 (printed in the modern Turkish alphabet which he created), the book is not
catalogued in his library. He died in 1938 before the new Kitabı Mukaddes was published in 1941.

138
At its founding in 1804, the British & Foreign Bible Society allowed the printing of Bibles with the Old
Testament Apocrypha. Theological objections to this policy led in 1813 to the withdrawal of the Scots and the
founding of a separate Scottish Bible Society, and the BFBS accepted this criticism in 1826 by adopting a policy
against the inclusion of the Apocrypha in its Bibles (G.H. Anderson, op.cit., p. 538). Thus, when the Turkish
Bible was printed in 1827, a draft translation and “fair copy” of the deuterocanical books were available for
editing in Ali Bey’s manuscript, but the decision of 1826 meant that they were to be excluded. Research in the
BFBS archives would reveal the context for this concession by the BFBS to the objections of the Scots.

139
The initial letter G is represented inconsistently in Ali Bey’s transcription of Hebrew place names. Following
an Arabic spelling convention for Hebrew words, he wrote Celile for Galilee, Cacele for Golgotha, but then
switched to Kerkisin for the Gergesenes (Gadarenes), and Getsemani for Gethsemane. Kieffer tried to
straighten out Ali Bey, representing G (Hebrew gimel) consistently as Turkish C (or Hebrew jimel) — thus Celil
(but not Celile), Calcala, Cercese and Cesemeniyet, respectively; also ín the Old Testament Kieffer was rigorous
in writing G as C, e.g. Cilcal for Gilgal, Cil’ad for Gilead, Colyat for Goliath. Ali Bey’s inconsistency suggests that
he knew it did not really work. Haki knew his Hebrew and wrote Ġilġal, Ġil’ad, and Ġolyas (Golyat with Arabic
se = th), with ġayin.

140
A note in French bound in front of the title page of the complete secretarial copy reads: “The 5 Books of
Moses. A very neat copy made of the manuscript of Ali Bey; but the copyist has sometimes committed
 46
the easiest to read of them all. An examination of the BFBS archives or Kieffer’s papers might

inform us about the decision to include vowel points. Was it done for the sake of easy

reading? for Turkish readers of minimal education? for Armenian or Greek readers who

were accustomed to reading Turkish in their own alphabets, not in Ottoman Turkish

characters? or simply for European scholars who needed the vowel points as a crutch?

The two books were printed in large format: the height is 27 centimeters or 10.6 inches, only

a little smaller than A4 paper today. In later Turkish Bibles the unpointed text helped the

printer reduce the physical size of the book. Like the 1819 New Testament, the New

Tesament of 1866 was 22 cm. high, the 1886 Kitab-ı Mukaddes 21 cm., and the 1911 İncil only

19 cm. Advances in lead type technology contributed to this condensing process. The later

typefaces are crisper than the typeface of Kieffer’s Bible but harder to read because the type

is both small and unpointed. Turks who can read the Arabic text of the Koran, where vowel

points are generally supplied, sometimes confess that they cannot read Ottoman Turkish

because it was normally written without vowel points.

One notable fact about Kieffer’s 1819 and 1827 versions is that all the translators —

Bobowski, Kieffer, von Diez — were men who learned their Turkish in government service;

they were not missionaries. It is also significant that a Turkish Bible was finally brought to

press only when an organized Bible society assumed control of the project. Funding,

institutional energy, and a board capable of resolving conflicts were essential to the project’s

completion.

After 25 years a need was felt for a revision of Kieffer’s New Testament, and an additional 25

years were needed to finish a complete revision of the Ottoman Turkish Bible in 1878 — half

a century after Kieffer’s Bible. In the meantime there appeared Turkish Bibles in Greek and

Armenian letters that were dependent on Kieffer’s Bible and, in that sense, revisions of it.

1852 – Kitab-ı Sifr-ül Halika ve Mezamir-i Davud (Book of the Creation Account [Genesis]
and the Psalms of David). London: BFBS. A revison of Kieffer’s Genesis and Psalms by
Türabi Efendi. 154 pp.

omissions or other errors” (translated from Schmidt, op.cit., vol 1, p. 417). Handwriting analysis would
determine whether Kieffer wrote this note and therefore whether he used the secretarial manuscript.
 47
This first attempt at a revision of the Turkish Bible is a rare book — only the copy in the

British Library is mentioned anywhere. Elçin says it is a second printing but seems to mean

that the first edition was Kieffer’s Bible.141

In 1942 MacCallum, with the full resources of the Bible Society in Turkey at his disposal, was

unable to find any information on the life of Türabi Efendi, the translator of this booklet and

subsequent revisions of Kieffer's work.142 One thing we do know about him is that he was

the author of the first Turkish cookbook!143

1853-54 – Kitab-ı İncil-i Şerîf el-mensub ila Rabbina İsa el-Mesih. William Watts nâm
şahsıŋ tabhânesinde tab ve temsil olunmuşdır fi sene 1854 el-mesîhiyye [London].

The British Library has this book, which was a revision by Türabi Efendi of Kieffer’s version.

It contained the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles only, despite the title which suggests

that it was a complete New Testament.

Notably, all the revisions of the 1850s were published by the BFBS in London. The BFBS did

not yet have a printing operation in Turkey. The American Board had set up a press in

Smyrna, but for some reason it was not used for the BFBS's translations during this period.144

1855 – El-İncil ila rivayet-i Matta ’l-Aziz (The Gospel according to the story of St.
Matthew). London, by the BFBS. Translated by James W. Redhouse, revising Türabi
Efendi. Printed in two bilingual versions, Turkish-English and Turkish-Italian.

After Schroeder’s four chapters of Genesis in a Turkish-Latin version in 1739, this was the

first diglot book of the Turkish Bible. Italian was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean

seaports.

141
Elçin also mentions that a manuscript of this book (of Genesis and Psalms only?) had been in Hyde’s
possession at Oxford (1976, p. xi). Was Elçin mistaken, or does a different manuscript or copy of Ali Bey’s
translation of these two books of the Bible exist? Elçin cites no source for his statement.

142
MacCallum (1942), p. 61.

143
Türabi Efendi, The Turkish Cookery Book: A Collection of Receipts, from the Best Turkish Authorities (1865).
Reprinted by Kessinger, 2008.

144
A library catalog shows an entry for a 4th printing of a Turkish New Testament in 1853 by Hariton Manasyan
Matbaası in İstanbul. Because it was a 4th printing, it would seem that this cannot have been the same book as
Türabi Efendi’s new translation. That it is an erroneous catalog entry is suggested by the number of pages, 637,
which is the same as the number of pages in the 1866 translation by Schauffler and Selim Efendi (see below).
 48
1857 – Kitab ül-ahd el-cedid el-mensub ila Rabbina İsa el-Mesih (The Book of the New
Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ). London: William Watts (?), by the BFBS. Revised
by Türabi Efendi and James W. Redhouse.

Redhouse’s involvement in Bible translation began after Türabi Efendi’s Gospels and Acs of

1853 sold out during the Crimean War.145 Redhouse had published his first Turkish-English

dictionary in 1855 and was celebrated later for bigger dictionaries and a grammar of

Ottoman Turkish, written in English. He also translated William Paley’s Evidences of

Christianity into Turkish on behalf of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel (SPG),

which had begun to interest itself in Muslims. As a Bible translator, however, his career was

short-lived. He was a European renegade who as a young man had jumped ship in

Constantinople and gone to work for the Ottoman navy as a draftsman. 146 Though his

language skills were prodigious, he was not a believer, did not know Hebrew and Greek,

and his Turkish style was judged by Christian critics in Istanbul to be too much flavored

with Ottomanisms of Arabic and Persian vintage. The Armenian Evangelical Church had

been established in 1845 and its leaders had begun to make known their evaluations of the

translators’ work.

John 1:6 provides an example of the milder revisions of in this version. In Kieffer’s Bible of

1827 we read: Allah’dan gönderilmiş bir adam var idi ki onuŋ adı Yuhanna idi, to whıch Türabi

and Redhouse make three small changes: Allah’dan irsâl olunmuş bir adam var idi ve onuŋ adı

Yahya idi. The changes were of three kinds: 1) using Yahya in place of Yuhanna acknowledged

the Koranic name of John the Baptist and distinguished him from John, the writer of the

Gospel; 2) substituting ve for ki got rid of one of the annoyances of 17th-century syntax with

its frequent use of this Persian relative particle; and 3) substituting irsâl etmek for göndermek

re-introduced the Arabic word in place of a Turkish one, reverting to the usage of Ali Bey in

his manuscript and the New Testament of 1819. Arabicizations of individual words occur in

many verses, e.g. John 8:10, where Türabi and Redhouse have Jesus speaking to the woman

caught in adultery as follows, with Kieffer’s version in parentheses: Ey ‘avrat ol (şul) seni

ithâm edenler (kovalayanlar) nerededirler (kandadır), ‘aleyka (üzeriŋe) hiç kimse hükm etmedi

mi? Here Türabi and Redhouse help the reader by revising two Old Turkic forms (şul, kanda),
145
Carter V. Findley, “Sir James W. Redhouse (1811-1892): The making of a perfect Orientalist?” Journal of the
American Oriental Society 99: 573-600 (1979); see p. 583 for references to his Bible translation work.

146
URL: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14780/pg14780.txt.
 49
but they also eliminate the Turkish kovalamak in favor of Arabic ithâm, and substitute the

Arabic preposition ‘aleyka for a Turkish one.

In some passages Türabi and Redhouse’s Arabic and Persian phrase syntax (called izafet or

“tacking on”) is almost incomprehensible to the modern Turkish reader. In James 1:16-18, for

example, they wrote: “Ey sevgỉli karındaşlarım yaŋılmayıŋ. Her bir mevhibe-i hayriye ve her bir

mevhibe-i kâmile yukarıdan olup nûrlarıŋ babasından nüzul olur ki onuŋ katında teġayyür ve

tahallüfüŋ şâibesi yokdur. Ol kendi irâdesinden olarak hakk kelâmı ile bizi tevlîd eyledi tâ ki biz

mahlûklarınıŋ bir nev-i nevbâvesi olayız.” Even in Ali Bey’s translation and Kieffer’s revisions

this sentence was rather strained, but Türabi and Redhouse engage in heavy and seemingly

gratuitious Arabicization of the text. They were trying to write the high literary Ottoman

Turkish of their time. Their successors, Selim and Schauffler, produced a more tasteful

literary translation by eliminating Türabi and Redhouse’s excessive izafet phrases and

returning in many cases to Turkish instead of Arabic or Persian expressions.

Nevertheless, the Turkish syntax of the 1857 New Testament is more natural than that of

Kieffer’s 1827 version. Influenced by the fashion of the new Ottoman printing industry,

Türabi Efendi and Redhouse smoothed out the awkward Turkish sentence structure in

verses where Kieffer had followed European diction too closely. Nevertheless, Türabi and

Redhouse did not start from scratch on a new translation but copied every sentence from

Kieffer’s New Testament. Though they made many appropriate adjustments to syntax and

many vocabulary substitutions, their dependence on Kieffer is evident. It was Schauffler’s

work in the 1860s (see below) that moved definitely in the direction of the elegant Ottoman

style of the mid-19th-century neo-classical revival.

The Turkish New Testament of 1857 has been digitalized. An excerpt from it posted on the

internet147 includes an appended note that misstates historical events when it says, "This

edition seems to be the product of the much needed criticisms of Scholar Ebenezer

Henderson [about shortcomings of the earlier version of A. Bey].” Henderson’s corrections

had been addressed in Kieffer’s Bible of 1827. The work of Türabi Efendi and Redhouse in

the 1850s was unrelated to the controversy of the 1820s.

147
http://www.archive.org/details/1857TurkishTurcTurkeiTurqueNouveauNewTestamentIncilInjilKitabi_349,
 50
Early Influence of the Bible among Turkish Muslims

In 1856 the Hatt-ı Himâyun (Edict of Protection) proclaimed freedom of religion in the

Ottoman lands, or so it was thought at the time. The decree was celebrated by the British

ambassador with a presentation of a copy of the Turkish Bible to Sultan Abdülmecid. 148 (If

this was a complete Bible it must have been the first edition of 1827; if not, then Türabi

Efendi’s Gospels and Acts of 1853.) The elation over this event in European circles was short-

lived.

The alliance of Britain and France with Turkey in the Crimean War had given them

opportunity to force the issue of religious freedom. Though the intention was primarily to

protect the Ottoman Christian minorities, the edict also opened the way for Muslim outreach

in small house meetings. ABCFM, SPG and CMS (Church Missionary Society) workers

encouraged this work.149 “By 1864, there was a wave of Muslim inquirers and converts [and]

more than 50 Turkish men, women and children were baptized (1857-1877)…On one

occasion, ten adults were baptized and prospects of a convert church seemed hopeful.” 150 In

1860 two Turks began their studies at St. Augustine’s Missionary College, Canterbury:

Mahmoud Efendi, who later worked on a Turkish grammar but died in 1865 at Malta, and

Selim Efendi, who became a key figure in Turkish Bible translation.151

On 17 July 1864 a wave of arrests of Turkish converts began. They were imprisoned or

disappeared, and the Ottoman government instructed the British ambassador that no further

evangelization of Muslims would be allowed. Clearly the European and Christian

interpretation of the provisions on religious freedom in the Hatt-ı Himâyun had been too

hopeful. The lasting result of this period of Muslim outreach was not a Turkish church but

the revision of the Ottoman Turkish Bible. Led by ABCFM translators, financially supported

by the BFBS, and staffed by native speakers of Turkish (Turkish Muslims and Armenian
148
Cooper, p. 22.

149
William G. Schauffler, Autobiography: for forty-nine years a missionary in the Orient (New York: A.D.F.
Randolph, 1887), p. 205f. URL: http://www.archive.org/details/autobiographyofw00scha.

150
Lyle van der Werff, Christian Mission to Muslims: The record: Anglican and Reformed approaches in India and
the Near East, 1800-1938 (South Pasadena, Cal.: William Carey Library, 1977 [1942], p. 162.

151
Schauffler (1887), p. 199, 232. A photo of Mahmoud and Selim can be seen with their seminary class in
Canterbury at: http://www.machadoink.com/Students%20of%20St%20Augustines%20College.htm. Selim took
a Christian name and was ordained Rev. Edward Williams.
 51
Christians), the revision built on translations that had already been done in Græco-Turkish

and Armeno-Turkish (see Chapters 3 and 4 below).

1862 – İncil-i Şerîfiŋ tercümesiniŋ gûnesi olmak üzere ol kitab-ı mukaddesiŋ işbu cild-i
evveli Harûtûn nâm tabâ'ıŋ matbaʿasında tab ve temsil kılınmışdır - 1862 fi sene-i
milâdiye [İstanbul] (This first volume of a translated version of the Noble Gospel
printed and reproduced [in Istanbul] at the press of Harutun the printer). Translated by
William G. Schauffler, William Goodell and Selim Efendi.

This was the first part of the Turkish Bible in Arabic characters printed on Turkish soil,

preceded only by Firkowitz's Torah of 1835 in Hebraeo-Turkish and the early Armeno-

Turkish and Graeco-Turkish translations. Like Türabi Efendi's version of 1853-54 it contains

only the Four Gospels and Acts.

Of all the 19th-century translators, Wilhelm152 Gottlieb Schauffler (1798-1883) had perhaps

the most fascinating background.153 A “Russian German” from Odessa where his father led a

German peasant colony, he traveled to Smyrna in 1826 where he met one of the two original

ABCFM missionaries in the Near East, Jonas King. King encouraged him on his way to

Andover Seminary in Massachusetts, and after completing the theological curriculum there

he proceeded to Paris to study Arabic with de Sacy and Turkish with Kieffer, who had

recently finished editing Ali Bey’s Bible manuscript. Schauffler arrived back in

Constantinople in 1832.154 William Goodell was the first ABCFM worker in Constantinople,

arriving in 1831, followed by Schauffler. Both were graduates of Andover, the new

evangelical alternative to Harvard Divinity School, which had fallen under Unitarian

influence.

Schauffler led the ABCFM’s Ottoman Jewish outreach for 25 years, 155 producing an Old

Testament in Ladino, the Hebræo-Spanish language of the Sephardic Jews of the Ottoman

152
His name is always printed William in English-language sources and library catalogs. I have not found a
German source on Schauffler.

153
Schauffler (1887), op.cit.; G.H. Anderson, op.cit., pp. 595f.

154
Joseph K. Greene, Leavening the Levant (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1916), p. 71. URL: http://www.archive.org/
details/leaveninglevant00greerich.

155
Rufus Anderson, History of the Missions of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to the
Oriental Churches (Boston: Congregational Publishing Society, 1872), vol. 1, chapter 30.
 52
lands. 156
Then toward the end of the 1850s Schauffler turned his attention to Ottoman

Turkish translation.157 He was charged with transcribing Goodell’s Armeno-Turkish into the

Arabic characters of Ottoman Turkish but soon felt this was a hopeless task, because the

Turkish spoken by the Armenians and Greeks was “too coarse and degraded to be…

acceptable to Osmanlis,” and because “the same terms were frequently employed by the

different nationalities in widely different senses.”158 This suggests that a conflict was

brewing about whether the approach to Muslims should involve different methods and

language than those used in outreach to Armenians and other Christian minorities — a

problem of contextualization that remains a matter of controversy among Christians to this

day.

Schauffler’s first effort, in collaboration with Selim Efendi, a convert from Islam, was the

Gospels and Acts, which appeared at the height of the spiritual awakening after the Crimean

War. It was well received both by Muslim converts and by Ottoman Christians who could

read Turkish in Arabic script.

1865— İncil-i Şerif ile Tefsiri. İstanbul: Erzincanlı Artin Minasyan ve Şirketi Matbaası. 400
pages.

This book is listed in the collection of Mr. Talat Öncü as “BDK - ÖZEGE; 9130”. I have not yet

examined the translation or commentary.

1866 – Kitab-ül-ahd el-cedid el-mensûb ilâ Rabbina İsa el-Mesih (The Book of the New
Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ). Translated by Schauffler and Selim Efendi.
İstanbul: Hariton Matasyan Matbaası, 637 pp.

This version was “translated afresh from the Greek ... [and] the Gospels and Acts (1862) were

corrected afresh for this edition.” 159 Here the New Testament begins to sound like Modern

156
Ladino was to Ottoman Jews what Yiddish was to European Jews: colloquial Hebrew mixed respectively with
Spanish and Turkish, and Polish and German. Both are now dying languages, but they were strong, living
languages in the 19th century. Freely concludes his book on Sabbatai Sevi with a personal account of
overhearing a cleaning lady at the Edirne train station singing in Ladino in the 1990s.

157
Greene, p. 22, gives the date 1856. Cooper, p. 23f, and Nilson p. 134, say 1858. Schauffler himself does not
give a date.

158
Cooper, p. 25.

159
Thomas H. Darlow and Horace F. Moule, eds., Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in
the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 2 vols. (London: Bible House, 1963 [1903-11] and New York:
Kraus, 1963). Darlow and Moule are quoted in a note in WorldCat.org library records. Their statement that “the
 53
Turkish, because the relative clauses were now arranged according to Turkish rules of

syntax, rejecting the frequent use in Kieffer’s Bible of the Persian particle ki to connect

relative clauses, returning to Ali Bey’s style in this respect and often preferring his choice of

words to Kieffer’s.

The 1866 version circulated among Muslim inquirers during the new openness after the

Crimean War and the Hatt-ı Himâyun. Schauffler and Selim adopted a definite Muslim focus,

contextualizing the translation to the neo-classical Turkish style of the mid-19th century.

They were accused of using too many Arabic words and phrases, though in fact they used

simple Turkish words more frequently than either Kieffer or Türabi and Redhouse had

done.. The difficulty had been “to create the style of language which would be intelligible to

the less literary [Turkish or Armenian reader] while at the same time being attractive to the

educated [Muslim].”160 Schauffler’s and Selim’s work did not fulfill the hopes of the

missionary community, where the preference leaned heavily toward a translation in the

simple Turkish of the Ottoman Christian minorities. A related aim was that Muslims,

reading the Ottoman Turkish Bible in Arabic characters, and Christians, reading the

Ottoman Turkish in Armenian or Greek characters, might read the same Bible text in their

different scripts. While the 1878 and 1886 Kitab-i Mukaddes relied on the 1866 New Testament

for its precise sentence syntax, its vocabulary was simplified and its range reduced.

Coincidentally, “The Bible House in Constantinople” was established in 1867 as a joint

venture of the American Bible Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society. 161 The first of

the several buildings in Sirkeci, up the hill from the Galata Bridge, was finished in 1872. 162

whole [was] revised by J.W. Redhouse” seems to be a confusion with the New Testament of 1857.

160
Nilson, p. 135

161
Wosh, p. 244.

162
Writing in 1915, Greene provided finely tuned details on mission history in Turkey: “In 1872, in spite of all
obstacles, Dr. Bliss had the satisfaction of seeing the first of the Bible House buildings finished. It is a handsome
building, of yellowish stone, five stories high and fire-proof. The shops on the ground floor are rented, and on
the floors above are the offices of the agent of the American Bible Society and of the treasurer of the American
missions [ABCFM], with large store-rooms for Bibles and mission books and rooms for editors and translators of
mission books and periodicals, and on the top floor the residence of the agent of the Bible Society. A second
building, subsequently erected in the rear, is rented for a large printing establishment, with facilities for
electrotyping and lithographing. A third building, on another part of the lot, is used, on the ground floor, as a
chapel, seating 250… A fourth building is rented for shops. The total cost of the land and buildings has been
over $100,000, of which $60,000 was raised by subscription, and the balance has come from rents. The income
 54
The organizer of this project was Isaac Bliss, ABS “agent” for the Levant since 1856. He

reported in 1883 that almost 2 million Bibles and portions had been printed in 30 languages

since the first press was established in Malta in 1815, 163 (it moved to Beirut and Smyrna in

1833 and after Smyrna to Istanbul). Of course the 2 million Bibles included not only Ottoman

Turkish but other languages of the ethnic groups of the Ottoman Empire, as well as some

European languages.

1868 – Mezamir-i Davud (Psalms of David). Istanbul: Minasiyan (=Hariton Matasyan?)

Matbaası. Translated by Wilhelm G. Schauffler.

Schauffler produced in this book a true book of neo-classical Ottoman Turkish poetry,

presumably in collaboration again with Selim Efendi. Almost every noun in these Psalms is

from Arabic or Farsi, and many verbs are as well, because a Turkish verb can be formed by

adding the Turkish verb “to be” (etmek, eylemek or olmak) to nouns. Clearly this translation

was intended not for the new Protestant churches but for the Ottoman literati. Schauffler’s

commitment to make the Bible meaningful to classically educated Turkish Muslims is

evident in this translation above all others.

Many in the Ottoman Christian community felt that Schauffler had strayed into more and

more ornate Turkish with each book of the Bible he produced. Both of the principal

advocates of the two approaches to translation had long experience in Turkey. Schauffler

was opposed by Dr. A.T. Pratt, who was summoned from Anatolia in 1868 to work on Bible

translation. Pratt’s revision of Goodell’s Armeno-Turkish New Testament was successful (see

Chapter 4 below), but he died in 1872 before the issue with the Ottoman Turkish Bible was

resolved.

In July 1873 a revision committee met in Istanbul, encouraged by both the ABS and the BFBS

to make a firm decision on translation policy. 164 The issue was whether the Armeno-Turkish

should serve as the basis of an Ottoman Turkish translation. The committee included

from rents amounts to about $4,000 annually, and is used for taxes and insurance, repairs, and enlargement of
the property, and for the support, in part, of evangelistic services in the chapel in the Greek and Turkish
languages. The Bible House property is administered by a self-perpetuating board of trustees in New York,
organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a local advisory committee, selected annually by the
board of trustees” (op.cit., pp. 129f.).

163
G.H. Anderson, op.cit., p. 69; Cooper, p. 18.

164
Cooper, p, 28.
 55
ABCFM personnel: Schauffler, Elias Riggs, and George F. Herrick, the latter an associate of

the late A.H. Pratt. The British member was R.H. Weakley of the CMS, who had been one of

the translators of the Mizan ul-Haqq of Karl Gottlieb Pfander (1803-1865), a defense of the

Christian faith written specifically for Muslims. This committee first drafted Genesis as a

trial run to establish procedures, then turned to the New Testament.

At this point, in December 1873, Schauffler resigned from the committee due to ill health

and “irreconcilable differences of opinion.” The others on the committee favored the

Armeno-Turkish Bible as the basis for the Ottoman Turkish. 165 Schauffler resigned also from

the ABCFM over the Board’s decision not to set up a separate Muslim outreach division. 166

He moved to Moldova, saw his Turkish translation of the Pentateuch and Isaiah to print in

Vienna (funded by the ABS, though it is often termed an “independent version”), then

retired to the USA. His autobiography was published posthumously in 1887.167

1872 — Sifr-ü Tekvin el-Mahlûkât — Bereshit. Miciçde tab olunmuş fi sene 1872 el-
mesihiyye (Book of Genesis, printed at Miciç in 1872 AD). 88 pp.

This is a diglot Genesis with Hebrew on the right-hand pages and Turkish on the left. It may

be Schauffler’s Turkish version of Genesis, but I have seen only the title page, 168 where a

printer’s notation in Latin characters says “Turk. & Hebr. Gen.” The Hebrew title page says

the book was printed in Vienna by Mr. A. Reichard & Co., so Miciç in Ottoman characters

means Vienna.169

1873 — Ravi Sadık yani Kütüb-ül-ahd el-atik ve ahd el-cedidin havi olduğu hikâyâtın
mecmuasıdır (A loyal friend’s message, or a collection of the story contained in the
books of the Old Testament and New Testament). Istanbul: Papasyan Artin Matbaası.
363 pp.

165
Cooper, p. 37.

166
Schauffler (1887), p. 235.

167
Schauffler (1887), URL: http://www.archive.org/details/autobiographyofw00scha.

168
URL: http://books.google.com.tr/books/about/Book_of_Genesis_in_Turkish_and_Hebrew.html?
id=2MAeuAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

169
Strangely, the year of publication printed in Arabic numbers, 1872, does not agree with the Hebrew “5,602 as
of Creation," which corresponds to 1841-1842.
 56
This book is not mentioned by Cooper. A used bookstore in Istanbul advertises one copy for

a high price. If there was a publisher other than the printer, this is not stated in the online

advertisement.

1874 – Gospels and Acts. Printed in Istanbul by the Bible Societies. Revised by a KMŞ
committee from Schauffler and Selim’s version of 1862.

The Gospels and Acts were the first fruit of the revision committee’s work, marking the end

of a 50-year tradition of the single missionary translator and a single native collaborator. A

first draft was done by George Herrick and Avedis Constantin, an Armenian pastor, then

revised by Şükri Efendi and Şemsi Efendi (replaced soon by Ahmet Efendi). Cooper reports

that “immediate use was made by the distribution of several thousand copies amongst the

Turkish soldiers at the seat of war.” 170 This was the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-78, which

followed the Bulgarian Revolution of 1876. It is intriguing to imagine how the distribution of

the New Testament to Ottoman soldiers fighting against Christian armies was allowed. In

Turkey’s secular army today, no religious books of any kind are distributed, even in peace

time.

Cooper describes the working method of the revision committee. After the draft had been

compared with the Greek and, in cases of obscure language, with European translations,

the literary form of the sentence and its exact intention were submitted to the
Turkish co-assessors and discussed with them. That done, the whole passage was
read aloud in its revised form, finally corrected and passed by agreement of the
responsible members, or, in the very rare instances of disagreement, by a
majority.171

1875 – Ahd-i cedid, yani, İncil-i Şerif: Lisan-ı aslı Yunaninden bir tercümedir (New Testament,
or the Holy Injil. A translation from Greek, the original language). Istanbul: Boyaciyan
Agop Matbaası. Reprinted in 1877.

This New Testament includes the Gospels and Acts printed the previous year. A library

record indicates that the Revision Committee included Schauffler, Riggs, Herrick and others;

so Schauffler’s contribution was still being recognized though he was no longer a member of

the committee at the time of publication. For the first time a pocket edition was printed as

well:

170
Cooper, p. 35.

171
Cooper, p. 35.
 57
Sufficient interest was taken in the publication of the Testament, at once by the
native Turkish assessors of the Committee and by their Moslem friends, to dictate a
request that it might be printed (for one edition) with fine type in a small form, so
as to be carried about and read, without attracting the unwelcome attention of
fanatical neighbours.172

A similar request was voiced by the Turkish churches for a pocket edition of the İncil in 2001;

in 1875, however, the source of the request included Muslim readers.

1876 – Mezamir: Lisan-ı asli İbraniden bi't-tercüme. Boyacıyan Agop Matbaası, İstanbul,
İngiliz ve Amerikan Bibl Şirketleri. 187 pages. (Apparently a trial run for the Kitab-ı
Mukaddes of 1878)

1876 –İsaya peygambere nazil olan vahyidir (The revelation that descended to Isaiah the
prophet). Vienna: Adolf Holshaus. “An independent version by W.G. Schauffler.” 173
107pp.

1877 – Tevrat, yani, Musa peygambere vahyi tarikile nazil olan şeriat ül-lâhik kitabıdır
(Torah, or the book of the guiding Sharia that descended to Moses the prophet by
means of revelation). Vienna: Adolf Holshaus. Translated by Wilhelm G. Schauffler.

After resigning from the American Board and the Translation Committee and leaving

Turkey, Schauffler arranged for the printing of his final translations in Vienna. He was still

funded by the ABS and the BFBS. 174

Because its intended audience was Turkish Muslims of the mid-19th century, and because

this kind of contextualized language remains an issue today, Schauffler’s and Selim Efendi’s

work deserves critical examination by a student of Ottoman Turkish and Bible translation

theory. Unfortunately, copies of their books do not surface in Istanbul’s used book stores,

probably because the older versions went out of fashion when the new Turkish Bible of 1878

and 1885-86 appeared. They can, however, be found in a few libraries in Europe.

1877 – Gospel of Matthew. 121 pp. Apparently a revision of Matthew in the New Testament
of 1875 and a foretaste of the Kitab-ı Mukaddes printed the next year.

1878 – Ahd-i Cedid yani İncil-i Şerif : Matta ve Markos ve Luka ve Yuhanna ve Amâl-i
Rüsûl (The Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles). Der Saadet [İstanbul]: Boyacıyan
Agop Matbaasında tab olunmuştur. Apparently a foretaste of the Kitab-ı Mukaddes printed
later in same year.

172
Cooper, p, 35

173
Darlow and Moule, op.cit., are quoted In a note on this version in WorlCat.org library records.

174
Schauffler (1887), p. 235.
 58
1878 – Kitab-ı Mukaddes, yani Ahd-i Atik ve Ahd-i Cedid: ‘An asl muharrer bulunduğu İbrani
ve Keldani ve Yunani lisanlarından bi’t-tercüme… ve İngiliz ve Amerikan Bibel şirketleri
masârifiyle (The Holy Book, or the Old Covenant and New Covenant: A translation from
the original texts in the Hebrew, Chaldean (Aramaic) and Greek languages… with
funds of the British and American Bible Societies). Ma'ârif umumiye nezaret-i celîlesiniŋ
ruhsatıyla (with the permission of the High Ministry of Public Information). Der Saadet
[İstanbul]: Boyacıyan Agop Matbaasında tab olunmuştur. 832 OT + 250 NT pages.

In December 1878 this first complete Ottoman Turkish Bible since Kieffer was published

concurrently with the Armeno-Turkish revision (see Chapter 4 below). It is the first use of

the title Kitab-ı Mukaddes for an Ottoman Turkish Bible. The place of publication, Der Sa’adet

(Gate of Bliss), is an Arabic honorific for Istanbul. Kieffer’s Old Testament having been

previously revised only in Türabi Efendi’s Genesis and Psalms, and Schauffler’s Genesis,

Psalms and Isaiah, the 1878 Bible was the first complete Turkish translation of the Old

Testament in half a century, combined with the New Testament of 1875.

The title pages carried a notice that the book was published with the permission of the

Department of Public Information. Sultan Abdul Hamid II had revoked the Ottoman

Constitution of 1876 and taken repressive measures against reformers; so his stamp of

approval on the 1878 Bible came as a surprise. The Bible House had not asked for a royal

imprimatur, only for permission to proceed with printing under the terms of the Hatt-ı

Himâyun. It would seem that this appeal for approval was made at this time (and not earlier

when the New Testament was printed) because of the serious implications of the revocation

of the Constitution. The application was rejected initially on the grounds that the Bible was

not needed in the language of the Sultan’s Muslim subjects. Upon appeal by the British

ambassador this decision was reversed, but what appeared to be a serendipitous

endorsement of the Bible by the Sultan became also a restrictive precedent. Henceforward all

books published in the Ottoman Empire required government permission. The publication

of the Bible had been promoted by European diplomatic influence, but the requested

certification was subsequently exploited by the government as a rationale for official

censorship.

Again George Herrick and Avedis Constantian were the lead translators, and again the

Turkish translators were Muslims: Şükri Efendi and Ahmed Efendi, who were (retired?)

government clerks, and Keyfi Efendi, a Kurdish scholar of Turkish and Arabic literature.
 59
Keyfi Efendi’s “study of the Bible finally led him to confess Christ,” 175
but he was never

baptized and remained a Muslim in the employ of the Bible House. He had been hired

initially as a copyist because of his beautiful penmanship (a reminder that photocopy

machines were still a century away) and because of his interest in the Gospel, to which he

had been introduced by a Yezidi in Iraq. Keyfi Efendi was honored by the committee with

the task of doing the final revisions of Turkish grammar and wording; so this Bible that

formed the new basis of all future editions of the Kitab-ı Mukaddes reflects the language of

Keyfi Efendi. He went to his reward in 1882.

Some phrasings from earlier versions were retained in the 1878 version; for example, the

Epistles of John repeat the 1857 translation by Türabi Efendi and Redhouse in many verses.

Later 19th-century printings modified the 1878 version only slightly. In the Hacı Mahmud

Efendi Collection in the Süleymaniye archives, a printed but undated Bible seems to be the

1878 version.176 The first verses of Genesis in this version show differences in two small

details from the 1886 version.177 The 1878 version contained no footnotes.

1885-1886 – Kitab-ı Mukaddes, yani Ahd-i Atik ve Ahd-i Cedid: ‘An asl muharrer bulundugg u
İbrani ve Keldani ve Yunani lisanlarından bi’t-tercüme… ve İngiliz ve Amerikan Bibel şirketleri
masârifiyle (The Holy Book, or the Old Covenant and New Covenant: A translation from
the original texts in the Hebrew, Chaldean (Aramaic) and Greek languages… with
funds of the British and American Bible Societies). Ma'ârif umumiye nezaret-i celîlesiniŋ
14 Muharrem el-Harâm 1301 ve 3 Teşrîn-i Sânî 1299 tarîhli ve 752 nûmarûli ruhsatnâmesiyle
(with certificate of permission no. 752 of the High Ministry of Public Information dated
the 14th day of Muharrem, 1301 A.H. and the 3rd day of Teşrin II, 1299 A.H.) İstanbulda
Boyacıyan Agop Matbaasında tab olunmuştur. 1885 version: 1,422 pages with footnotes.
1886 version: 1,023 pages without footnotes.

In response to growing Turkish literacy and a new emphasis on Turkish popular culture, this

Bible revision eliminated still more Arabic and Persian features and made minor

adjustments to Turkish grammar in the Kitabı Mukaddes of 1878. Cooper tells us that new

members were added to the committee to replace older Turkish scholars “who could not

175
Cooper, p. 31, quoting from Isaac G. Bliss, Twenty-five Years in the Levant (1883); MacCallum (1942), p. 62.

176
No. 4797-001 and 4797-002.

177
I thank Sadık Yazar for sharing with me this transcription from the Süleymaniye document: “Allâh ibtidâda
semâvât ü zemîni halk eyledi ve zemîn tehî ü hâlî ve lücce üzerine zulmet olup sularun üzerinde dahi rûhullâh
hareket ėderdi.” The 1886 version shows sular not sularun, and ėder idi not ėderdi.
 60
make a complete break from the Osmanli [sic] tradition of style with its unnecessary

borrowing of Arabic and Persian vocabulary and syntax.”178

Upon the death of Sultan Abdülaziz in 1876 and in response to the liberal reputation of the

new Sultan Murat, a large number of Turkish newspapers and journals had emerged

suddenly. They were allowed to function freely for a few years, even under the censorship

policy of Sultan Abdülhamid. As a result a public language emerged that popularized the

written style of Ottoman Turkish. According to the CMS translator, R.H. Weakley, this social

process influenced the 1885 revision of the Bible. 179 Nilson’s description of the development

of Ottoman Turkish style over several centuries deserves special note:

Ali Bey’s relatively simple Turkish of the seventeenth century was unacceptable to
the educated Muslim Osmanli whose language had become highly stylized and
remote from the conversational language of the people. During the course of the
[19th] century… this was successfully simplified as the educated classes began
advocating a simplified and purer Turkish literature.180

In other words, the Kitab-ı Mukaddes of 1885-86 returns us to simple Turkish like that of Ali

Bey, except that two centuries of language development had now occurred. In qualification it

must also be said that the neo-classical Ottoman Turkish of the mid-19th was not entirely

eliminated from the new Bible, as many of the fine expressions of Wilhelm Schauffler and

Selim Efendi were accepted by its editors.

Even in the 21st century the Turkish language is still replete with Arabic and Persian words.

It was not so much Arabic and Persian vocabulary as Arabic syntax and phrasings that were

progressively edited out of the 1878 and 1885-86 versions of the Turkish Bible. Persian izafet

(Arabic and Persian nouns connected by means of the Persian particle –i/-ı or the Arabic

u-/ü-) is seldom encountered in these new versions. The Turkification of Turkish writing is

an ongoing social process that began in the 1870s.

The 1885 version featured an extensive set of cross-references, which made it a very large

book. These cross-references were eliminated in the 1886 printing, which therefore is almost

178
Nilson, p. 135; MacCallum (1942), p. 62.

179
Cooper, pp. 33ff.

180
Nilson, p. 135
 61
the same size as the un-footnoted version of 1878. The only footnotes in the 1878 and 1886

versions are a few variant readings and alternate translations.

1901 – Kitab-ı Mukaddes, yani Ahd-i Atik ve Ahd-i Cedid: ‘An asıl muharrer bulundugg u
İbrani ve Keldani ve Yunani lisanlarından bi't-tercüme… Amerikan Kitab-ı Mukaddes Şirketi
masârifiyle (The Holy Book, or the Old Covenant and New Covenant: A translation from
the original texts in the Hebrew, Chaldean (Aramaic) and Greek languages… with
funds of the American Bible Society). Der Saadet [İstanbul]: Boyacıyan Agop Matbaasında
tab olunmuştur. Printed also by Agop Matyosyan. 1124 + 334 pages.

This was the last major revision of the Ottoman Turkish Bible; so later dates of publication

on some Bibles and New Testaments reflect reprints from this version. The last printing I

have found in library records was in 1922, the year before the proclamation of the Turkish

Republic. New Testament reprints from the years 1903, 1906, 1908, 1911, 1912, 1920, and 1922

have appeared for sale recently on Turkish websites, along with a New Testament dated

1896 and Proverbs (Emsal-i Süleyman) dated 1898; apparently these were trial runs for the

1901 Bible. Funding this time was from the American Bible Society exlusively; the BFBS is

not mentioned on the title page of the these books.

Finally with this version the Turkish text was successfully harmonized, so that the Bibles in

Ottoman Turkish, Armeno-Turkish and Græco-Turkish typefaces used the same Turkish text.

The revision committee was led by George Herrick with members R.H. Weakley, Avedis

Constantian, H.O. Dwight, Elias Riggs, his son Edward Riggs, Prof. Bezdjian of Marash, and

Prof. Terzian of Aintab. Muslims were notably absent from this committee. After this point,

whenever Muslim scholars have been employed or consulted in Bible translation projects,

their involvement has been viewed with suspicion in the Christian churches in Turkey,

though missionary translators have often valued the linguistic contributions of Muslim

colleagues.

1922 — Kitabı Mukaddes. Translated by İzmirli İsmail Hakkı.

This is a printed version of (parts of?) the Bible in Ottoman Turkish by İsmail Hakkı (1869-

1946), a progressive Muslim scholar who later became chairman of the Faculty of Theology

at Istanbul University. He had been a member of the Committee of Union and Progress and

was interested in the history of religions. İsmail Hakkı’s book is archived at the Süleymaniye
 62
in Istanbul, 181
along with his earlier Arabic (not Turkish) printings of the Bible. 182
A study of

İsmail Hakkı’s life and work183 and a comparison of his translation with the 1901 version

would be a significant contribution to the history of the Turkish Bible. I have found no

mention of any influence of this work on the Kitabı Mukaddes of 1941. Was the Bible House

aware of this translation of the Bible by a Muslim?

2011 — Osmanlıca Kelâm. Images of the original pages of Ottoman Turkish Bibles, with
transcription in Modern Turkish characters.

This website at www.osmanlicakelam.net displays images from the 17th-century Turkish

Bible manuscripts and the several printed Bibles that followed. Currently the site features

many of the books from Ali Bey’s manuscript of 1665, his New Testament printed in 1819 as

edited by Kieffer, Kieffer’s Bible of 1827, Genesis and Psalms as revised in 1852 by Türabi

Efendi, the New Testament revised in 1857 by Türabi and Redhouse, the 1866 New

Testament newly translated by Selim and Schauffler and their Psalms of 1868, and the Kitab-ı

Mukaddes published in 1886. Schoeder’s Turkish-Latin diglot of Genesis 1-4 published in

1739 with a few chapters of Ali Bey’s text is included as well (Turkish and Latin on facing

pages). Supplementing the Turkish transcription, glosses on obsolete words and explanatory

notes are shown as pop-ups. Only books of the Bible for which transcription is available are

displayed, but additional chapters and books are added to the site as the transcription work

progresses.

181
İzmirli İsmail Hakkı, Kitab-ı Mukaddes, Osmanlıca, no. 4426-001.

182
İzmirli İsmail Hakkı, Kitab-ı Mukaddes, Arapça (1910) no. 0038; Kitab-ı Mukaddes, Arapça (1913), no. 4449-
001.

183
URL: http://www.enfal.de/ecdad140.htm
 63

Chapter 2
Turkish in Hebrew Letters (Hebræo-Turkish)

The Karaite Jews are geographically diverse and their origin is ancient. Rejecting the Talmud

and all other sources of religious authority except the Hebrew Old Testament (Tanakh), their

theology is sometimes traced to Philo of Alexandria, though the view that they can be traced

to the Sadducees derives from a mistranslation of the Karaite history of Avraham Firkowicz

(1787-1875).184 A key figure in Bible translation, he was the chief proponent of the idea that

European Jews, including the Karaites, are descendents of the Khazars, a medieval Turkic

kingdom of the Volga-Don basin which adopted Judaism in the 8th century, and from there

back to the Jewish diaspora among the Medes in ancient times.

The early Karaites spoke Karaim (Karayca), a Kipchak-Turkic language, which survived in

some communities into the 20th century.185 Because of the peculiarity of a Jewish people

speaking a Turkic language, even those histories that doubt Khazar ancestry for the Karaites

trace their origins to the breakup the Golden Horde (a Turkic-Kipchak kingdom on the

Russian steppe) in the 14th century. At this time Karaites settled in several towns of Poland

and Lithuania, others in the Tatar towns of the Crimean Peninsula (where they became the

Jewish majority in relation to the Rabbanite Jews (“mainline” Jews). The older Karaite center

in Byzantine Constantinople, where the Karaites spoke Greek, had pride of place. They fled

the city after Ortaköy burned in 1203, fearing further anti-Jewish pogroms by the Catholic

Crusaders who captured Constantinople in 1204. These Karaites settled in Edirne, but 250

years later were resettled in Ortaköy by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror. By the 19th century

the Karaites spoke the Turkic Karaim language in the Slavic and Lithuanian cities, but Tatar

or “Crimean Turkish” in the Black Sea region, and, increasingly, Ottoman Turkish in

Istanbul.

184
Dan Shapira, Avraham Firkowicz in Istanbul (1830-1832): Paving the way for Turkic nationalism (Ankara:
KaraM, 2003a); Abraham Baer Gottlober and Abraham Firkowicz, Bikkoreth letoldoth hakkaraim, oder,
Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Geschichte Karaer (Vilno: Sh.Y.Fin, 1865) (text in Hebrew; bibliographical
notes in Yiddish by A. Firkowicz).

185
Dan Shapira, “The Turkic languages and literatures of the eastern European Karaites,” in Karaite Judaism: A
Guide to Its History and Literary Sources, ed. Meira Pollack, Part I, vol. 73, pp. 657-707 (Leiden: Brill, 2003b).
 64
Hebrew scrolls of the Old Testament with partial translations and commentary in Karaim

had circulated for centuries in beautifully illuminated manuscripts, but the Karaites had

never printed a Karaim translation of the Bible. 186 In fact, the first printed Karaite Bible was a

Turkish (not a Karaim or Tatar) translation of the Torah. When Greece fought a successful

war of independence against the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s, Greek speakers came under

suspicion in Turkey. Karaite Jews were identified by the Turks with the Greek heritage. By

now, however, many Karaites spoke Turkish and their leaders were pursuing a new identity

for the small Karaite community. “The choice of Turkish [for a translation of the Torah]…

revealed…allegiance to the Ottoman state, particularly after the establishment of the Greek

state.”187

In general the Karaites had fared well under Islamic rule, especially during the modernizing

reforms of the last khan of the Crimean Tatars, Şahin Giray (1745-1787), who had also

inspired the Tanzimat reforms of Sultan Mahmud II (1785-1839) in the Ottoman Empire. The

domains of these friendly Muslim sovereigns were a refuge for the Jews when they were

persecuted by Christian princes. It was under these circumstances that a movement to teach

Turkish to the Karaite children of Ortaköy was promoted by Firkowicz, the controversial

rabbi who had moved from Crimea to Ortaköy in 1830. He prepared a diglot Torah as a

teaching aid.

1832-35 — Torah (Pentateuch), Turkish in Hebrew characters. Translated by Avraham

Firkowicz, Yitshaq b. Samuel ha-Kohen, and Simha b. Yosef Eğiz. Printed in
installments as a diglot book with Hebrew and Hebræo-Turkish on facing pages, by
Arab-Oğlu Bolus (Paulus), an Armenian printer in Ortaköy, Greater Istanbul.

This Torah is the first Bible in Ottoman Turkish written in Hebrew script. 188 The date and

title are uncertain because all surviving copies are lacking the first page; one copy is held at

the Ben-Zvi Institute in Jerusalem. Its vocabulary is the vernacular Turkish spoken in

Istanbul (“the language of Ismail”), but the syntax follows Karaim or Hebrew. The foreign

ordering of the phrases means that it is not a good translation in Turkish terms, but this

186
Shapira (2003a), p. 29.

187
ibid., p. 39f.

188
Shapira (2003a), pp. 29-41; also his "Miscellanea Judæo-Turkica. Four Judæo-Turkic Notes: Judæo-Turkica IV,"
Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 27: 475-496 (2002), here pp. 486ff.; “Karaite printing in the Ottoman
Empire” (2005), p. 13, URL: http://colloque.imprimes.mo.pagesperso-orange.fr/pdf/DSA0.pdf.
 65
feature made it useful to the Karaite boys to whom Firkowicz was teaching both Hebrew

and Turkish.

Shapira provides some examples of the translation.189 At Deuteronomy 31:26 it reads:

“almaya kıtabın bu ol-Torah-nin190 ve qoyasınız onu tarafından şart sandığını H’Tanğrinizin ve olsun

orada sana şahadlığa,” which in the Kitabı Mukaddes of 1987 reads: “Bu şeriat kitabını alın, ve

onu Allahınız RABBİN ahit sandığının yanına, sana karşı orada şahit olsun diye koyun”
(Take this book of the law and put it beside of the ark of the covenant of YHWH your God,
that it may be there a witness for you). This kind of quasi-interlinear Hebraic syntax
occurred also in Haki’s manuscript of the Turkish Bible, as noted by Neudecker (see above).
Jewish translators seem to have been reluctant to deviate from the arrangement of the
Hebrew phrases.

Firkowicz himself was a native Karaim speaker who learned Tatar and then “Crimean

Turkish” for strategic reasons; so the Turkish vocabulary of his translation of the Pentateuch

was edited and no doubt improved by the other translators, Yıtzhaq Cohen and Simha Eğiz.

They were native to the Karaite community in Ortaköy and good Turkish speakers.

Considering the animosity between Firkowicz and Cohen over control of the Karaite

synagogue there (described in painful detail by Shapira), it is surprising that the Turkish

translation of the Torah was ever completed.

For Firkowicz, printing a Turkish Bible in Hebrew letters was a forward-looking way for the

Karaites to distinguish themselves not only from the Greeks, but also from the “Rabbanite”

Jews, the main and larger body of Jews, who spoke Ladino in Turkey. 191 Firkowicz gloried in

the idea of Turkic Judaism and Turkish-speaking Karaite Jews. He hoped to make Istanbul

the spiritual center of this movement, including the larger communities of Karaites in

Russian cities. Unfortunately for him, his grand plan was rejected by the Karaite Jews of

Ortaköy. They were a small community and felt Firkowicz’s project would overwhelm them

189
Shapira (2003), p. 33

190
This translation used the Turkic pronoun “ol-” to translate the Hebrew definite article “ha-“ except that for
theonyns the Hebrew “ha-“ was preserved literally. Where they needed the Turkish pronoun they used “o” as
in modern Turkish (Shapira 2003a, p. 33, n. 56).

191
The “Rabbanite” Jews of Turkey, along with the Dönme sect, spoke Ladino, also called Judezmo or Hebræo-
Spanish. Therefore they did not suffer under the same political liabilities as the traditionally Greek-speaking
Karaites. Schauffler began work on a Ladino translation of the Bible about the same time as the Karaites were
producing their Turkish translation (see the chapter below on “Related Languages”).
 66
with linguistic and cultural influences from elsewhere in the Karaite world. His vision of

Turkic Judaism also threatened the Karaites’ pecuniary links with the Greek Orthodox

Church, which was served as a financial conduit with their benefactors in Karaite

communities elsewhere.

Though the printing of the Torah went forward, it appears that some of the Jews of Ortaköy

preferred Kieffer’s Ottoman Turkish Bible of 1827. Schauffler noted in 1851 that Kieffer’s

Bible was being read by Jewish scholars,192 and these may have included Karaites. A

Christian translation of the Turkish Bible intended for a Muslim audience did not preclude

its use by other Turkish speakers who could read Arabic script.

The shelf life of the Hebræo-Turkish Torah was short. Plans to translate a complete Hebræo-

Turkish Bible (Old Testament) were abandoned, because the Torah failed also to impress the

Karaites in Crimea, where Tatar, not Turkish, was the lingua franca. Firkowicz had returned

to Crimea in 1832 before the printing was finished. Eventually all copies unsold in Ortaköy

were sent to Crimea, but Firkowicz was unsuccessful in promoting their use there.

In 1841 at Gözleve (Eupatoria) in Crimea an Old Testament was printed in a Tatarized

Karaim translation, sponsored by the merchant Mordechai Tırışqan. This Bible attracted the

loyalty of Karaite Jews in Crimea and Russia. The Hebræo-Turkish Torah no longer had an

audience and was assigned to oblivion, but, as Shapira notes, it “could provide much

material about vernacular Turkish as spoken in the Ottoman capital in the first half of the

19th century, especially by non-Muslims.”193

The Hebræo-Turkish Torah was the first piece of the Bible ever printed in Istanbul. It was

also an original translation. MacCallum’s suggestion, 194 repeated by Toprak,195 that it was

192
William G. Schauffler, “Shabbathai Zevi and his followers,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 2: 1-26
(1851), p. 26.

193
Shapira (2002), p. 487. The history of Jewish printing also includes a Turkish dictionary in Hebrew characters
by Ali b. Nasr b. Daud, dated to 1676, which makes it a resource for students of 17th-century Turkish. The copy
in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France was displayed at the Sabancı Museum, Istanbul, August-September
2010.

194
MacCallum (1942), p. 60.

195
Toprak, op.cit., p. 7.
 67
based on a 14th-century Karaim translation has been refuted by Shapira. 196
It was the

Tırışqan Bible in Tatarized Karaim that was adapted from earlier Karaim material, not the

Hebræo-Turkish Torah.

The “de-judification” of the Karaites in favor of their “Turkicness” became a personal project

of Firkowicz, which he pursued for the rest of his long life. He meant this only in the

political, not the religious, sense. He believed the Karaites were the true Jews and persuaded

the Russian government that they should not be persecuted with the main body of

Rabbanite Jews. Karaite ethnic origins, he believed, were distinct from those of other Jews;

therefore the Karaites could not be blamed for the killing of Jesus and the persecution of the

early church. Shapira proposes that this argument was an early example of Turkic

nationalism. Atatürk himself was impressed by it as an example of a long-standing

European sub-culture with a Turkic identity and idiom. Ismail Gaspralı (Gasprinsky, 1851-

1914), the Tatar nationalist and famous advocate of Pan-Turkism, grew up in Bahçe-Saray,

Crimea, and may have been influenced as a child by the famous patriarch, Avraham

Firkowicz, who lived nearby.197 For Firkowicz himself, the Turkish Pentateuch had been an

early project in his lifelong ambition to make the Karaite Jews embrace Turkishness.

196
Shapira (2005), p. 13; p. 14 n.33; p. 12, n.27.

197
Shapira (2003a), pp. 60-94.
 68

Chapter 3
Turkish in Greek Letters (Græco-Turkish, Karamanlıca)

Many Greeks of Ottoman Asia Minor learned Turkish as their mother tongue but wrote it in

Greek characters. This was called the Karamanlı Turkish culture, because of the large Greek

Christian population in the Karaman and Cappadocia regions of Anatolia. Generally

speaking, the Greeks of the Anatolian plateau spoke only Turkish, just as Muslims in Crete

spoke Greek as their mother tongue but wrote it in Ottoman Arabic characters. Turkish was

spoken also by Greeks in Constantinople and other coastal cities, where bilingualism was

normal. The need for a Turkish Bible in Greek characters was deeply felt especially in the

Greek communities in Anatolia.

1782 – The Psalms in Græco-Turkish. Translator unknown. (Acts and the Epistles also
appeared in Venice in 1818.)

1822 – The Psalms. Revised by Henry D. Leeves.

Henry D. Leeves (d. 1845)198 was an Anglican clergyman who had been appointed principal

agent for the BFBS in Constantinople in 1820. Robert Pinkerton (mentioned above in

connection with Kieffer’s Bible) also visited Constantinople and “arranged for the

transcribing of the Turkish Scriptures into the Greek character, for the use of the numerous

Greeks, who could only read and understand the Scriptures in that form, since called the

Græco-Turkish.”199 Pinkerton also signed contracts for the production of a Bible in Modern

Greek, which eventually became Leeves’ project in addition to the Græco-Turkish. 200

1826 – Ahdi Cedid yani Nea Diathēkē (New Testament): Rapp-i Ïisa el-Mesihin Ahdi Tzedidinin
Gionani Lisanindan Tourk Lisanina Tertzoumesi (Rabb İsa el-Mesih’in Ahd-i Cedidi’nin
Yunani lisanından Türk lisanına tercümesi). Istampolda, De Kasponoun Pasmahanesinde.
Transcribed by Henry D. Leeves.

198
For Leeves’ date of death see: http://website.lineone.net/~aldosliema/rl.htm.

199
George Browne, The History of the British and Foreign Bible Society, from its institution in 1804, to the close
of its jubilee in 1854 (London: Bible Society House, Blackfriars, 1859), vol. 2, p. 29. Browne’s wording reminds
us that the terms Græco-Turkish, Armeno-Turkish, etc. were creations of the translators and not indigeous in
the Turkish language itself.

200
Pinkerton also contracted with an Albanian translator and initiated plans for a Ladino (Judezmo) translation.
See the chapter below on Related Languages.
 69
The title of this Turkish New Testament is written in both Arabic and Greek characters, and

we are also told on the title page that it is for the use of Christians in Anatolia who do not

know Greek (Giounani lisani pilmegeen Anadoloudaki Hristianlerin txanigiet (=caniyet)

menfaatleri itxoun tap olounmouş dour). Cooper reported it to be a “transcription of

Kieffer’s Turkish Testament (1819) in Greek characters,” 201 i.e. of Kieffer’s controversial

edition of Ali Bey, the distribution of which was suspended because it featured too much

Islamic vocabulary. A study of how Leeves dealt with these expressions, especially

considering that he was writing for Greek Christians, would be revealing.

Significantly, a Bible in Greek characters was printed in Turkey at the same time that the

BFBS decided it could find facilities to print the Ottoman Turkish Bible only in Paris. The

Turkish Psalms in Greek characters were published in 1827 at the same printing house.

The Greek spelling Istampol on the title page reflects the Greek polis for city, which is the

source of the syllable –bul in the Turkish word İstanbul.

1835 – Genesis yani Mahlukatin yaratilicinin kitabi (Genesis, the book of the creation of
created things)... “a Protestant translation.”202

The Greek alphabet is familiar to more Europeans than are the Arabic characters of Ottoman

Turkish, but one discovers in transcribing the Graeco-Turkish into Latin characters that

Greek did not have the ı, ö, ü or ş and used other consonants differently than the Modern

Turkish reader would expect. Thus pes is written for beş, piutun for bütün, and tagilmasi for

dağılması in the following title:

1836 – Hazreti Musanın pes kitaplari hem tahi Navi Oğlu Iesunun kitapi, ki İngilterranin
ve piutun dunyanın sair her taraflarına mukattes kitaplarin tagilmasi itzun İngiliz
memleketinte muntazim olan Refikatin marifeti ile Atzik Turktze lisana tertzime
olunup Tzezirei Syrata Amerikali I.I. Robertsonun Pasmasinta tap olunmus tur
(Hazreti Musa’nın beş kitabı hem dahi Navi Oğlu Yesu’nun kitabı, ki İngilterra’nın ve
bütün dünyanın sair her taraflarına mukaddes kitapların dağılması için İngiliz
memleketinde muntazim olan Refikat’ın marifeti ile Açık Türkçe lisana tercüme olunup
Cezire-i Surata Amerikalı I.I. Robertson’un basmasında tap olunmuş dur).

201
Cooper. p. 41; cf. Nilson, p. 133, Riggs, p. 240.

202
Shapira (2003), p. 29f., n. 51
 70
This is the Pentateuch and Joshua, translated into the “Plain Turkish” of the Ottoman

Greeks.203 Translated by Leeves and Christo Nicolaides, it anticipated their Græco-Turkish

Bible of 1839. The title tells us that the book was funded by the British and Foreign Bible

Society and published by the ABCFM at their I.I. Robertson Press, established in 1828 on the

island of Syros (Cezire-i Syra) in the Aegean Cyclades. The Karamanlıca translation of Genesis

mentioned above may have been printed in the same place. The long-winded Turkish

representation of the name of the British and Foreign Bible Society (“Committee formed to

Distribute the Holy Hooks in England and in all other parts of the Whole World”) follows

the wording in Kieffer’s Bible of 1827.

The translation is characterized as a rendering into Açık Türkçe. This means “Plain Turkish”,

the language of the people as differentiated from the elegant Turkish of the sultan’s court

and the Ottoman elite. Clearly the Greeks spoke simpler (some would say inferior) Turkish

when compared with educated Turks, but it is also true that Greek influenced Turkish. In the

Ottoman Turkish translations from Ali Bey onwards one discovers occasional words of

Greek derivation, usually having to do with agriculture (angaria for corvée labor, defne for

the laurel bush [Gk. daphné], ırgad for a field hand [Gk. ergates < ergazomai, to work], nadas

for a fallow fıeld [Gk. neatos < neos = new], etc.); and now and then an Italian word as well

(manca for a non-helal meal, i.e. not properly prepared in the Muslim fashion [Ita. mangia]).

1839 – The Græco-Turkish Bible. Translated by Leeves and Christo Nicolaides. Printed in
Athens and Beirut.

In the 1820s the Greek war of independence against the Ottoman Empire precipitated

pogroms against Greeks in Constantinople. Leeves had begun his work there but moved to

Corfu, the Adriatic island. He worked there with Nicolaides, a native of Philadelphia (now

Alaşehir). They later moved on to Athens where the printing was completed. MacCallum

tells us that the Græco-Turkish Bible they produced was essentially identical to Ali Bey’s

translation; in other words, a transliteration of Kieffer’s Bible of 1827 into Greek characters. 204

Nilson, however, says that Leeves simplified the Turkish to conform to the vernacular of the

Ottoman Greeks, moving away from the Arabic and Persian phrasings in Ali Bey’s

203
ibid. I have copied the title from Shapira.

204
MacCallum (1942), p. 62.
 71
manuscripts and Kieffer’s Bible. 205
This difference of views deserves further investigation,

revealing how little we know about the Græco-Turkish translations.

1844 – Iob, Paraoimia Solomontos, Ekklisiastis yani Iobun, Emsali Solomonun ve Vaizin
Kitapi ki Halia Meytzetten Atzik tirktzege terzume olunup…. (Same printing data as
for the Pentateuch and Joshua).

1856 – The Græco-Turkish Old Testament. Revised by William Goodell (ABCFM) and
Constantinides Philadelpheus. Revised again in 1863. Printed in Istanbul.

The Greek Protestant movement was never widespread in the Ottoman period; so the

impact of the Græco-Turkish Bible was limited. Because the Old Testament did not include

the Apocrypha, it did not conform to the text of the Greek Orthodox Church. For more on

William Goodell, see the Armeno-Turkish Bible below.

1869 – Kitabı Mukaddes. Edited by Elias Riggs. Printed in Istanbul.206

By now Goodell had retired. Elias Riggs (1810-1901) was his American contemporary,

schooled at Andover like Goodell and Schauffler, serving initially in Athens and Smyrna

until he moved to Constantinople in 1844, where he lived for more than half a century until

his death at the age of 90 in 1901. During his career he worked on Bible translations in four

languages: this revision of Goodell’s Graeco-Turkish, the Modern Greek, the Armeno-

Turkish and the Ottoman Turkish (see Chapters 3, 4 and 7 below and Chapter 1 above).

1884 – Kitabı Mukaddes. Revised by Elias Riggs with Alexander Thompson (BFBS), George
Kazakos, a Greek evangelical pastor, and Avedis Assadourian of the Armenian
Evangelical Church.

The Græco-Turkish Bible used Allah for God, as in Turkish, but Peder for Father and Iēsous

Christos, as in Greek; otherwise it sounds quite Turkish when read aloud. Written in the

colloquial Karamanlıca dialect, it used no Arabic and Persian phrases and fewer Arabic and

Persian words than the Ottoman Turkish Bible of 1878. For this reason the Græco-Turkish

sounds more like modern Turkish in some ways than the Ottoman Turkish does.207

1899 — Ahdi Cedid yani Nea Diathēkē: ‘An asıl muharrir bulunduğu Yunani lisanından bit
terjeme. Ingilterrede ve memalik-i sairede mukaddes kitapların neşri için teşkil edilen şirketin
mesarifiyle. Istanbolda: A.H. Boyacian Matbaasında tap olunmuş tur (Ahd-i Cedid, in other
205
Nilson, p. 134.

206
Cooper, p. 27n gives the date as 1871. The printing may have spanned several years.

207
My thanks to Rod Harbottle for this insight (personal correspondence).
 72
words the New Covenant: A translation from the original texts in the Greek language.
With funding from the Bible Society established for the distribution of the holy books in
England and other countries. Printed at the A.H. Boyajian printing house in Istanbul).

This appears to be a reprint of the New Testament from the Græco-Turkish Bible of 1884. As

in Leeves’ translation of 1826, the main title shown in boldface above was written in both

Arabic and Greek and the sub-title in Turkish, but all in Greek letters. The title reveals some

of the peculiarities of Ottoman usage: bir (one) is assimilated to bit when followed by a word

beginning with t; and the Arabic plural memalik (countries) is used in place of today’s

memleketler. The Greek spelling of Istanbol reflects the Greek polis for city, but the printer was

an Armenian.

Both the bilingualism of the coastal cities and the “reverse monolingual” cultures of the

Anatolian and Greek hinterlands were lost after the exchange of Turkish and Greek

populations in 1923. New public school systems assimilated these Ottoman cultural groups

into the nationalist monocultures of Greece and Turkey. As a result, the Græco-Turkish Bible

is a mere curiosity today.

 73

Chapter 4
Turkish in Armenian Letters (Armeno-Turkish)

The Armenian Bible translated by St. Mesrob Mashtots and his disciples in 434 AD was one

of the earliest Bible translations in any language, the proud legacy of the Armenian

Apostolic (Orthodox) Church. One of the treasures of Ottoman bookmaking is an

illuminated vellum manuscript of the Armenian Bible made in Istanbul in 1623 by the scribe

Hakop at the behest of an Armenian community in Persia. 208 The Venice Psalter of 1565 was

the first printed Bible portion in the Armenian language. 209 The full Armenian Bible was

printed for the first time in Amsterdam in 1666, then revised in Constantinople in 1705. 210

The Armenian Bible of 1733 was the work of the Mechitarist Fathers of San Lazzaro, Venice.

The first project of the Russian Bible Society, founded in 1813, was to reprint 7,000 copies of

this Armenian Bible, but these were bought primarily by the clergy of the Armenian

Apostolic Church. Many Armenians no longer understood the Armenian language.211

By the 19th century, a Bible in the vernacular language of the Armenian people was needed,

and this was no longer Armenian but Turkish, written in Armenian characters. Pliny Fisk,

the first American missionary in the Near East, recommended that a Bible translation be

done in Armeno-Turkish to support the vision of reforming the Armenian Church — it being

a Protestant principle that a reformation requires the proclamation of the Word of God in the

language of the people.212 Though Fisk died young, his challenge became a focus of the

ABCFM and BFBS initiatives in Turkey.

208
This Bible is in the rare books collection of the Calouste Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon:
http://www.museu.gulbenkian.pt/obra.asp?num=la152&nuc=a5&lang=en. It was on display at the Sabancı
Museum, Istanbul, in August-September 2010.

209
URL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/greekot.iii.iv.html gives the data as 1565, but
http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/bodley/library/specialcollections/oriental_rarebooks/middleeast says 1587.

210
See illustrations at: http://www.melikiancollection.com/Selections/Early-Armenian-Printed-
Books/6834426_xbGiQ. For a history see: http://armenianbible.org/.

211
Julius Richter, A History of Protestant Missions in the Near East (New York: BiblioBazaar, 2009 [Fleming H.
Revell, 1910]), p. 98.

212
Cooper, p. 18.
 74
1819 — New Testament in Armeno-Turkish, by Seraphim Khojentzi. Printed by the Bible
Society of St. Petersburg, 826 pages.

Khojentzi means a man from Khojand, Central Asia (now Tajikistan). He was an

archimandrite (abbot) in the Armenian Apostolic Church, but one source says he was a

translator for the Russian government. 213 Mandated by the Armenian Patriarch (in

Constantinople?), his New Testament was published with support from the BFBS and was

followed in 1822 by a revision (?) by a certain Keghamian of Erivan. 214 Another revision was

begun by Henry D. Leeves in 1823, but he soon decided to focus on the Modern Greek and

Græco-Turkish translations, handing off the Armeno-Turkish work to Goodell. Comparison

of this version with Goodell’s revision below might reveal why the ABCFM and BFBS felt a

new version was needed, especially since the 1819 version was widely circulated as late as

1851.215 It was on sale for $2,000.00 on a rare books website in 2010..

1831 — New Testament in Armeno-Turkish, by William Goodell with Bishop Dionysius and
Vartabed Gregory. Printed at the CMS press established at Malta for this purpose, with
funding from BFBS.

The bishop and the vartabed (church teacher) were Armenian Orthodox scholars of

evangelical persuasion. (The Armenian Evangelical Church was not established until 1845.)

Work on an Armeno-Turkish New Testament had begun in 1823 in Beirut when William

Goodell (1792-1878) first arrived on the field and met these men. 216 When he moved from

Malta to Constantinople in 1831 — the first Protestant missionary to reside there — he

brought with him this Armeno-Turkish New Testament and tells us that it was welcomed by

the Patriarch of the Armenian Apostolic Church. In light of the opposition of the Patriarch

that emerged within a few years, it may be surmised that he was as interested in Goodell’s

plan to set up schools for Christian children as he was in Goodell’s New Testament. 217
213
http://www.palinurusbooks.com/Catalog30.pdf, citing Darlow & Moule, op. cit. # 9454.

214
Deny, p. 39n; Riggs, p. 241.

215
Riggs, p. 240.

216
G.H. Anderson, op.cit., pp. 250f.; E.D.G. Prime, ed., Forty Years in the Turkish Empire, or Memoirs of Rev.
William Goodell, D.D., Late Missionary of the A. B. C. F. M. at Constantinople (New York: Robert Carter & Bros.,
1876). URL: http://www.archive.org/details/fortyyearsinturk00good.

217
Goodell in Prime, op.cit., p.128, 132ff. Goodell had learned the pedagogy of the “Lancastrian” school model
that was popular in the early years of American public education. Few teachers were needed because good
students were assigned to teach the ones who lagged behind. Goodell carried a full curriculum with him when
 75
Goodell had a fervent evangelical spirit, believing that the Armenian Orthodox church could

be reformed from within. Young Armenian men came to him for Bible study, the results of

which exceeded his expectations: they rebelled against the conservative priests of the

Armenian Apostolic Church. When they were then expelled (some were also imprisoned by

the Armenian Patriarch), Goodell felt forced by circumstances to help them establish their

own church. The First Armenian Evangelical Church of Constantinople was founded in

1845, and a few years later the Ottoman government gave it legal covering by appointing an

Armenian layman as the titular head of the Armenian Protestant millet. Now there were

three Armenian communities in the Ottoman lands: the Protestants, the Catholics

(Franciscan and Jesuit missions to the Armenians had born fruit in the 18th century 218), and

the ancient Armenian Apostolic Church.

Goodell’s New Testament was the foundation of the Armenian evangelical revival, but the

Khojentzi version continued in circulation among the Armenian Orthodox. Rival Armeno-

Turkish Bibles seem to have circulated along confessional lines.

1843 — Armeno-Turkish Old Testament, by William Goodell and Panayotes Constantinides.

Printed at the ABCFM press in Smyrna.219

A partial draft of the Old Testament had been done by Bishop Dionysius, but half the

manuscript was lost in the fire that destroyed Pera in November 1831. Dionysius then

translated parts of the Old Testament again, and this was used by Goodell and Panayotes,

who finished their Old Testament in manuscript on 6 November 1841.220

he arrived in Constantinople in 1831.

218
Bruce Masters, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The roots of sectarianism (Cambridge
University Press, 2001), chapter 4

219
Prime, p. 128.

220
Cooper (p. 19) gives 1833 as the date of the fire in Pera. From Goodell himself we know it occurred two
months after his arrival in 1831. In a letter written in 1841 Goodell wrote, “Dionysius, the Armenian bishop,
formerly in my employ, first translated the work with the help of the Arabic and Ancient Armenian Bibles,
together with Keiffer [sic]. Nearly or quite half of this translation was burnt at the time of the great fire here
ten years ago; and the bishop had to translate it again. My present translator, Mr. Panayotes Constantinides,
had the advantage of this translation…” (Prime, 269; cf. p. 24, 114ff., 478). Goodell mentions fires also in 1839
(p. 238f.), 1848 (p. 343), 1849 (p. 348), and Schauffler, in a memorial to Goodell on his retirement, mentions a
fire in 1833, which may be the source of Cooper’s confusion (Prime, p. 478). Fires were frequent on the streets
of old wooden houses of Constantinople. The great fire of 1660 destroyed the Jewish quarter at Eminönü and
large sectıons of Muslim Istanbul.
 76
Goodell wrote in his journal 221
that the task had been difficult because there was no previous

Old Testament translation in Armeno-Turkish and because Armeno-Turkish had no history

as a written language. He was also sensitive to the scrutiny it would receive from the

Armenian clergy. We were, he wrote, “preparing the Scriptures for those who are

comparatively enlightened, and the learned and influential of whom have … become great

pedants in criticism.” A proud graduate of Andover Theological Seminary, Goodell added

that the translation was done from the Hebrew. Though he was himself employed by the

ABCFM, funding for the project came from the American Bible Society.

1862 — Kitab-ı Şerif yani Ahd-i Atik ve Ahd-i Cedid: Aslı İbrani ve Yunancadan Türkçeye
tercüme olunup İstanbul’da Şirket-i Şarkiye Basımhanesinde tab olundu. 1200 pp.

This is the Armeno-Turkish Bible revised and printed in one volume. Goodell and Panayotes

were tireless revisers of their own work. A revision of his 1831 New Testament had been

published in 1857. Goodell was the grand old man of the Protestant project in

Constantinople; he retired in 1865 after 43 years in the Near East, 34 of them in

Constantinople, and died in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1878.222

1870 — Aht ee Chee tit, eani : Inchil i Shee rif lisanee asli i eunanitee n pit’ t’ee rchiwmee (Ahd-
i Cedid, yani: İncil-i Şerif – lisan-ı aslı Yunaniden bir tercüme). WorldCat.org shows this
imprint: Istaa npoo lta: A.H. Poo yachean,223 1875.

This free-style revision of Goodell’s New Testament was done by A.T. Pratt, a physician who

worked in Aleppo, Aintab and Maraş and learned the Anatolian Turkish of the Armenian

evangelical communities there.224 His grammar of Ottoman Turkish recommended him for

translation work. In 1868 he was assigned to Constantinople to work on the Bible because he

was committed to the principle that the Ottoman Turkish, Armeno-Turkish, and Græco-

Turkish Bibles should reflect a single Turkish text in their respective alphabets. Pratt’s New

Testament is the version found in Armeno-Turkish Bibles of the late Ottoman period and

221
Goodell in Prime, op.cit., p. 270f.

222
In Memoriam. William Goodell (Chicago: Guilbert & Winchell, 1879). URL:
http://www.archive.org/stream/inmemoriamwillia00chiciala#page/n3/mode/2up. Cooper (p. 27) erroneously
gives Goodell’s date of death as 1867.

223
Boyacıyan.

224
Cooper, p. 20f.
 77
may still be bought in used book stores in Istanbul. He died in 1872 while revising the

Armeno-Turkish Old Testament.

1878 — Kitab-ı Mukaddes. Revised by a committee after the death of A.H. Pratt, including
his Armeno-Turkish New Testament. Printed concurrently with the Ottoman Turkish
version in Arabic characters.

1888 — Kitab-ı Mukaddes, reflecting the 1885-86 revision of the Ottoman Turkish Bible.225

This Bible marked the end of the Armeno-Turkish translation project — a matter which

deserves reflection. The Armenian people were geographically dispersed across the Ottoman

Empire. They had originated in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus but had gained a strong

presence across the empire, especially in the coastal cities, over its last two centuries or so.

Where the Armenian Evangelical Church was established, Armenians were active in

distributing the Bible in the various translations. After the pogroms of 1895-96 this

distribution network was adversely affected by fear. Then, after the terrible massacres and

forced emigration of 1915-16 (commonly called genocide in Armenian and Western

historiography), Anatolia and Thrace were essentially emptied of Armenian men, and many

Armenian women were absorbed into Muslim communities, often under duress, in

marriages to Kurdish and Turkish men. When Turkey excised most of its Armenian

population, the distribution of the Armeno-Turkish and Ottoman Turkish Bibles came to an

abrupt end in many places.226 Only in Istanbul, where the Armenians survived in reduced

numbers as a Christian community, did these Bibles still have a substantial readership. In the

late 20th century it was also in Istanbul where the first Turkish evangelical churches were

born, often as multi-ethnic churches that included Armenians.

1926 — Armeno-Turkish Reference Bible. Vienna: Christoph Reisser’s Sons.

A copy of this book is held by the Indiana University Library. Notably it was not printed in

Turkey. After World War I most of the surviving Armenians now lived elsewhere, and books

in the Armenian alphabet could no longer be printed in Turkey.

225
Nilson, p. 135

226
I thank Jurg Heusser for this historical insight in his essay, “Die Geschichte des türkischen Bibels,” which
seems no longer to be available at: http://www.orientdienst.de/muslime/tuerkische_bibel.shtml.
 78
Research on the Armeno-Turkish Bible awaits the attention of a scholar who can read both

Armenian and Turkish. There has been more research on the 16th- and 17th-century

Armeno-Kipchak Psalms227 (the Kipchak Turkish of Crimea and the Caucasus written in

Armenian characters) than on the Armeno-Turkish Bible of the 19th century.

227
Two complete manuscripts of the Armeno-Kipchak Psalms survive among “112 written monuments in
Armeno-Qypchaq from 1521-1669 … amounting to about 25-30 thousand pages” (Alexander Garkavetz,
“Armeno-Qypchaq language and written monuments,” URL:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/source/armeno-qypchaq.html; cf. İbrahim Arıkan, “Ermeni Harfli
Kıpçak Türkçesi,” URL: http://mtad.humanity.ankara.edu.tr/III-4_Aralik2006/60_MTAD_3-4_iArikan.pdf). A
transcription of five Psalms collections has been done by Z. Dubinska but remains unpublished (cf. Edward
Tryjarski, “A fragment of the Apocryphal Psalm 51 [151] in its Armeno-Kipchak version,” Journal of Semitic
Studies 28: 297-302 [1983]). An Armeno-Kipchak prayer book has been edited by Nadejda Chirli, Algıs Bitiği:
Ermeni Kipcakça Dualar Kitabı (Haarlem: SOTA Research Centre for Azerbaijan and Turkestan, 2005).
 79

Chapter 5 :

Turkish in Latin Characters (Modern Turkish)

The Turkish Revolution was symbolized by the adoption of a Latin alphabet inaugurated in

1928. This event ended the Ottoman phenomenon of Bibles in multiple Turkish scripts. It not

only overturned the orthographies of the Turkish Bible, it also squeezed its rich oriental

vocabulary into a modern mold.228

However, pride of place for the first translation of any part of the Bible in a Latin-based

Turkic alphabet goes not to the İncil of 1933 but to the Codex Cumanicus in the Kipchak

language.229 The original manuscript, later expanded, is usually dated to 1303 C.E. and

written in Latin letters, because Italian merchants and friars were its reading audience.

Kipchak was the Turkic language of the Golden Horde to the north and east of the Black Sea

during and after the Mongol period. The Mongol armies had included more Turks than

Mongols, and among these were the Kipchaks (also called Cumans), who were the ancestors

of the Tatars and other Turkic peoples in Russia and the Caucasus. 230

The Codex Cumanicus includes a small selection of Bible verses in Kipchak, including the Ten

Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer (the latter is shown in Appendix II). The translators

were Franciscan and Dominican friars who lived at Kaffa on the Crimean Peninsula and

itinerated in the Kipchak lands. Verses such as “Tengrini sevgil barca üstünde” (Love your God

above everything) and “Sevgil seniŋ qarindasin seniŋ kibi” (Love your brother as yourself) are

still recognizable to Turkish speakers.231 “Khanligiŋ bolsun” (thy khanate come) from the
228
Geoffrey L. Lewis, The Turkish Language Reform: A catastrophic success (Oxford University Press, 1999).

229
Peter Golden, “The Codex Cumanicus,” URL: http://eurasia-research.com/erc/002cam.htm or
http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/paksoy-2/cam2.html.

230
From the 9th century C.E. and as late as the 12th century the Khazars, a Jewish khanate, occupied roughly
the same region as the later Kipchaks. The Khazars seem to have spoken a Hunnic language related to
Bulgarian, with some Turkic elements, but their written and scriptural language was Hebrew. Reciting the
Psalms was the core of Khazar worship, but there is no evidence of a Bible translation in their native language.
For a summary of Khazar studies see Schlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, trans. Yael Lotan
(London/New York: Verso, 2009), pp. 210-249.

231
The –gil suffix reflects the Turkish verb kılmak. Bar and barca (all things) are still used in Tatar and Kazak and
are not unknown in Anatolian Turkish. URL: http://tdkterim.gov.tr/bts/?
 80
Lord’s Prayer is a reminder that the contextualization of the Gospel was being practiced long

before the innovations of the 20th century.

The Codex was largely a travel guide for European merchants doing business in the northern

Black Sea ports. The brief excerpts from the Bible found in it constitute a kind of catechism

for the use of Italian priests working among the Kipchaks, but the Codex was not a

translation of the complete Bible or of any book of the Bible. A Turkish Bible in Latin

characters was delayed many centuries, awaiting the language reform of Atatürk, and then it

inherited the tradition of Ottoman Turkish translation, not the Kipchak Turkish of the Codex

Cumanicus.

1928 — Proverbs. A di-script version in Arabic (Osmanlıca) and Latin characters.232

1928 — The Psalms. Translated by Fred Field Goodsell and a “Turkish philosopher and
poet.”233

This translation lacked “accuracy” and “uniformity” — in other wods it was a free

translation — and was never printed. Following this experiment Frederick W. MacCallum of

the ABCFM was appointed in September 1928 to lead a joint committee of the ABS and BFBS

to produce a Turkish Bible in conformity with Atatürk’s language reform. He was a

Canadian scholar who “had taught Hebrew and Greek during the first 20 years of his

missionary career, was as familiar with Turkish as any foreigner may hope to be, and could

use the English, French, German and Armenian versions to check their Turkish efforts.” 234

He chose a Muslim, identified cryptically as “Bay Cami” to be his assistant. 235 This man was

a Turkish soldier and diplomat living then in retirement, who, in addition to a deep
scholarly knowledge of his native Turkish, had acquired thorough mastery of
Arabic during fifteen years of service in North Africa, and of French during his
diplomatic career in Europe. He had, besides, a reading knowledge of German,
English, and Persian.”236

kategori=verilst&kelime=varca&ayn=tam.

232
Mentioned by Nilson, p. 136. I have not found this booklet in library catalogs.

233
Riggs, p. 247.

234
ibid.

235
MacCallum, p. 62.

236
Riggs, p. 247. I am identifying the “Bay Cami” mentioned by MacCallum with the retired soldier described by
Riggs.
 81
MacCallum and “Bay Cami” would produce a draft, pass it to another Turkish reader for

purely literary review, and then to a revision committee who checked it against the Greek

and Hebrew.

1930 — İncil Mattaya Göre : Eski Yunanca aslına tatbik olunarak Türkçesi tashih edilmiştir.
İstanbul: İngiliz ve Ecnebi Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi ve Amerikan Kitabı Mukaddes
Şirketi. 94 pp.

In 1930 and 1931 the Gospel of Matthew, followed by Mark and Luke, were printed

separately in the new Latin characters. The reviewers were C.F. Gates and F.F. Goodsell.

These Bible portions in the modern Turkish alphabet are still referred to as “Osmanli” in

some foreign library catalogs — a designation left over from the days when there was more

than one Turkish writing system.

1932 — Mezmurlar : Eski İbranice aslına tatbik olunarak Türkçesi tashih edilmistir. İstanbul:
İngiliz ve Ecnebi Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi ve Amerikan Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi. 245
pp.

A copy of this modern edition of the Turkish Psalms is held by the Pamukkale University

Library in Denizli, as well as several European and American libraries.

1933 — Mukaddes Kitabın İkinci Kısmı : Yeni Ahit. İncil ve Diğer Kitaplar. Eski Yunanca
aslına göre Türkçesi yeniden tashih edilmiştir. Publication page: “New Testament in Turkish
Revised Edition.” Neşredenler Amerikan Kitabımukaddes Şirketi ve İngiliz ve Ecnebi
Kitabımukaddes Şirketi. Printed at Selâmet Matbaası, İstanbul. 616 pp.

This was the first New Testament in the new Turkish alphabet, translated by MacCallum and

“Bay Cami” and reviewed by J.K. Birge, C.F. Gates, E.T. Perry, and Charles T. Riggs. Printed

on thin glossy paper, the typeface is sharper and blacker (more readable by tired eyes) than

any Turkish Bible printed since then. It perpetuated the habit of the late Ottoman New

Testaments that used the word İncil to mean the four Gospels, hence the words “ve Diğer

Kitaplar” (and Other Books) on the title page; nevertheless, İncil is embossed on the cover as

the sole name of the volume. On the title page Kitabımukaddes appears as one word in the

names of the Bible societies; this conflation was not repeated in later translations, but Kitabı

Mukaddes Şirketi (KMŞ) became the legal name of the agency in Turkey.

1933-38 — Several Old Testament books and Matthew. Trial publications. Istanbul: KMŞ
 82
Genesis and Isaiah (1933), Matthew, revised with style simplified (1936), Job (1938), as well

as the Psalms and Proverbs were printed separately as trial translations of the Old Testament

books in the 1930s.

1941 – Kitabı Mukaddes, Eski ve Yeni Ahit (Tevrat ve İncil) : İbrani, Kildani ve Yunani
dillerinden son tashih edilmiş tercümedir. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi, 489 İstiklal
Caddesi. Printed by Kenan Basımevi.

The new Turkish Bible was edited and prepared for press by F.W. MacCallum and “a

Turkish savant,”237 presumably meaning “Bay Cami” again. Library records sometimes carry

this notice: “Revised and corrected translation by F.W. MacCallum et al.,” the names of

Turkish assistants obviously concealed for security reasons.

An article by MacCallum’s son, F. Lyman MacCallum, in the Turkish language journal,

Tercüme,238 introduced the Turkish Bible to the language reformers. It was praised as “the

first truly Turkish publication since the language reform,”239 reflecting the feelings of a new

generation of Turks, who were proud of their new secular alphabet. For the first time a new

version of the Bible had been produced without the assistance of translators from Turkey’s

Christian communities, whose numbers had been decimated during the First World War and

its aftermath. The Armenian and Greek churches of Anatolia no longer existed, and in

Istanbul the churches had been overwhelmed by secularist nationalism.

Since 1941 there have been a series of minor revisions of this Bible with initial corrections

published in 1948, and the 1987 edition is still in print. Nevertheless, the Kitabı Mukaddes has

been criticized since the 1950s for its archaic vocabulary. The Turkish language reform had

been rigorously applied to the 1941 edition, but the difficulties were insurmountable, as later

explained by Nielson: “the militantly secular government… [was] trying to throw out

everything Arabic, but there was no attempt to provide a substitute for Arabic religious

terms. Therefore the committee had no choice but to continue using many Arabic terms in its

new translation.”240

237
Annual Report of the American Bible Society, vol. 139 (1955), p. 238.

238
MacCallum (1942), op. cit.

239
Nilson, p. 137

240
Nilson, p. 136.
 83
It is notable that the Kitabı Mukaddes bears the same Arabic title as the late-19th-century

translations (the deletion of the hyphen in the Arabic izafet phrase “Kitab-ı ...” made the title

look more Turkish). This Bible also retains the usage of Kieffer’s Bible of 1827 for the divine

names: Allah for elohim and theos; RAB for YHWH, and Rab for adonai and kurios (shortening

the Arabic Rabb to Rab, conforming to the rules of the language reform). Perhaps for this

reason the Kitabı Mukaddes is still recommended at the Faculties of Islamic Studies at Turkish

universities, but it is seldom read in Christian churches in Turkey today.

On the one hand, a good deal was gained in the Latinized version, including punctuation,

which Arabic and Ottoman Turkish lacked; on the other hand, much of the colorful

vocabulary of Ottoman Turkish was lost.

After English, Ottoman Turkish had the richest vocabulary of any language in world history;

whereas Modern Turkish, having thrown out many (but by no means all) Arabic and Persian

words, often restricts itself to a single word to convey a range of meanings. For example, the

1941 and later translations repeat the word sıkıntı endlessly to describe the troubles of life;

whereas Ottoman Turkish Bibles had featured a range of colorful words: gamm, ibtilâ, ızdırâb,

muzdarib, meşakkat, müzâyaka, etc. Such words are still shown in Turkish dictionaries, but the

tendency of modern translators is to avoid them in favor of sıkıntı, a supposedly “pure

Turkish” word which, however, was unknown before the language reform! Simplified

vocabulary has been a double-edged sword, both widening the readership by making

Turkish easy enough for minimally literate readers, but weakening a strong literary

tradition. The reformers “hacked away at picturesque, overgrown Ottoman Turkish,” 241 and

the Bible translators felt obliged to follow suit.

1957 — İşte Adam : İncilden Seçmeler (Behold the Man: Selections from the Gospel).
Hazırlıyan (prepared by) E.C. Blake. İstanbul: Amerikan Bord Nesriyat Dairesi. 39pp.

Everett C. “Jack” Blake (1901-1990) was the son-in-law of Fred Field Goodsell, one of the

members of the committee that produced the first post-language-reform İncil in 1933. By

1955 there was very little left of the Greek community of İzmir, where Blake worked. The

Christian era in biblical Smyrna appeared to have come to an end, but Blake now dared to

envision a Jesus movement among the Turks, selecting texts from the New Testament in the

hope that Muslims would read a sample. His title, “Behold the Man,” hints that, in his view,
241
Christopher de Bellaigue, Rebel Land: Among Turkey's forgotten peoples (Bloomsbury, 2009), p. 154.
 84
the humanity of Jesus as emphasized in liberal theology was the best way to appeal to

Muslims. A copy is held by Widener Library at Harvard University.

“Behold the Man” was not printed by the KMŞ but by the ABCFM as an outreach to

Muslims. Amerikan Bord Neşriyatı (ABCFM’s legal name in Turkey at that time) produced

other Bible literature during this period, such as a 40-page survey of the books of the Bible

entitled Kitabı Mukaddesteki Kitablar ve her biri hakkında bir yazı: Seçilmiş Kitabı Mukaddes

ayetleriyle beraber (İstanbul: Amerikan Bord Neşriyatı, 1954). They also published a series of

children’s books entitled Çocuklar için İncil'den Öyküler (İstanbul: Amerikan Bord Neşriyatı

Dairesi, 1956).

1958 – Mezmurlar : Aslına göre son tashih edilmiş tercümedir. Üçüncü basış. İstanbul: Kitabı
Mukaddes Şirketi. Small format paperback.

This is a revision of the Psalms from the 1941 Kitabı Mukaddes. It is identified as the 3rd

printing but the date of the first is not given. Probably the Psalms of 1932 and the Kitabı

Mukaddes of 1941 are meant.

1959 – İncili Şerif : yahut İsa Mesihin Yeni Ahit Kitabı, translated by Jean Wendel.242 Padua:
Apud Basilicam S. Antonii. With imprimatur. 533 pages. Paperback.

Jean Wendel was a Jesuit priest from Hungary who prepared a Turkish translation of the

New Testament during a period of new thinking in the Roman Catholic Church that led up

to the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). He used simple language

and circulated his Incil-i Şerif to a Christian audience in Istanbul for testing. The response

was positive, and a committee of the BFBS was formed in 1963 to revise the Gospel of Mark

from Wendel’s New Testament. The project included Wendel, Paul Nilson, two Americans,

two Turkish Muslims who were “sincerely dedicated”243 to Bible translation, and a Turkish-

speaking Greek Orthodox professor. This was the first effort to apply new vocabulary now

felt to be more acceptable in secular, republican Turkey than the Arabic religious vocabulary

of all previous Turkish translations.

New Translations for New Movements and Methods

242
Spelled Vendel by Nilson, p. 137, but Wendel in library records. Nilson's spelling reflects Turkish
pronunciation.

243
Nilson, p. 138.
 85
In the 1960s the first missionaries of Operation Mobilization (OM), a new evangelical agency,

arrived in Turkey. They saw little prospect that a Turkish church would ever result from the

work of the ABCFM, because the latter had been influenced by theological liberalism since

the late 19th century. After the Turkish Revolution the ABCFM had decided to continue its

work even though Turkey’s secular republic treated evangelizing Muslims as severely as the

Ottomans ever had. A few schools and medical facilities that had not been destroyed during

the wars of 1912-22 were revived, and the ABCFM was encouraged by the Turkish

government to continue its social work in conformity with secular principles.

Despite this policy, one Turkish group committed to follow Jesus emerged during the period

of radical secularism after the Turkish Revolution. Calling themselves Balıkçılar (Fishermen),

these Muslim-background families were led by Dr. Emin Kılıçkale, a Turkish Sufi, who

accepted the Four Gospels only and rejected the rest of the New Testament. He had studied

medicine at Yale University and imbibed the liberal spirit, including the view that the pure

historical Jesus was different from the constructed Christ of Christianity. Merrill Isely,

director of the American Hospital (ABCFM) and long-term resident of Gaziantep from 1920

t0 1960, met with the Fishermen for many years, coining the term “Jesusists” to distinguish

them from Christians. In the 1960s Isely’s successor, George Privratsky, persuaded the

Jesusists to study the Acts of the Apostles, but his counsel that they also read Paul’s Letter to

the Romans was not accepted. The influence of the Fishermen was limited to Dr. Emin’s

immediate circle in Gaziantep and a few nearby towns, also later in Ankara under the

leadership of one of his sons. The significance of this small movement was its affirmation of

Jesus as a kind of Sufi master and its embrace of the ethics of Jesus in a Muslim city.

OM workers felt the Fishermen were rigid, sterile and unsusceptible to evangelical influence,

and they criticized the ABCFM’s abandonment of specifically Christian evangelism. They

were young and mobile, learned Turkish well, worked at secular jobs or came in and out of

the country as tourists, passed out Christian literature, shared their faith, and were generally

brash, brave, and lovable. Inevitably some were arrested, deported and blacklisted. Though

they rightly invoked Turkey’s commitment to freedom of religion as specified in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they were violating the old gentlemen’s agreement
 86
between Atatürk and the ABCFM, disturbing the confluence of secular Turkish and liberal

Christian views that had prevailed since the Turkish revolution.

Today this first evangelical wave since the time of William Goodell, William Schauffer and

Elias Riggs is remembered as heroic in the Turkish Protestant churches. These small

fellowships are the fruit of the work of OM and other evangelical groups that followed, or

they were successors of the Armenian and Syriac (Süryani) Protestant churches of the 19th

century. This revival of the evangelical spirit in Turkey significantly influenced the course of

Bible translation.

1972 – İncil Markos: Aslından cc agg daş Tuu rkcc e'ye yapılan yeni tercuu me, by Jean Wendel
and Vedat Örs. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi. 50 pp.

The KMŞ (Turkish Bible Society) had previously reprinted booklets of the Gospels, Psalms,

Proverbs and Job from the Kitabı Mukaddes of 1941, but this version of the Gospel of Mark

was the first new translation they had attempted for a quarter-century. Vedat Örs was

professor of linguistics at Ankara University, retired and in his 80s by this time. His

competence in multiple languages was valued at the KMŞ and admired by young

evangelical Bible scholars newly arrived in Turkey. A Turkish Muslim but distinctly secular

in his philosophical perspective, Professor Örs began doing Bible translation in his old age

because of his deep respect for Jesus.

Notably, KMŞ continued its policy of using Muslim translators who were sympathetic to the

Bible, but the new evangelicals were suspicious of this translation which they saw as as the

work of a Catholic priest revised by a Muslim skeptic. It was unpopular also in Istanbul’s

conservative Armenian and Syriac (Süryani) Protestant communities. By now they were

accustomed to the Kitabı Mukaddes, and elderly Christians were still reading the Ottoman

Turkish and Armeno-Turkish versions in the “old letters.”

1974 – Markos İncili: Aslından cc agg dass Türkcc e'ye yapılan yeni tashih. İstanbul: Kitabı
Mukaddes Şirketi. Revised again and reprinted in 1978.

KMŞ kept trying to germinate a new translation, so the team was expanded. The lead

translator of this second attempt at the Gospel of Mark was again Prof. Örs, but there was

new blood. Pamela Richardson, a Cambridge graduate, was the exegete, and Graham

Clarke, an Oxford graduate in Turkish with expertise also in New Testament Greek, was a
 87
reviewer. They were among the new wave of evangelicals working in Turkey, and their

training in Koiné Greek was valued at the KMŞ, but “adverse comments” were cited by the

KMŞ as the reason for abandoning the project. Bünyamin Candemir, a Süryani Protestant,

argued that a Muslim could not understand the spiritual realities of the Bible, however good

a linguist he might be, and this view was accepted by the KMŞ director, Ameniel Bagdas,

also a Süryani.

1978— Hz. İsa’nın Öğretişleri and Hz. İsa’nın Mucizeleri. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi
(copyright, Ankara: Ortadoğu Yayınevi). Paperback. 104 pages each.

Modelled on the Living Bible Paraphrase by Ken Taylor, these booklets with black-and-white

illustrations featured selections from the Four Gospels. They were translated by Dr. Nevzat

Baban of the Istanbul University Medical School, who became one of Turkey’s most famous

scientists, assisted by Kenan Araz, whose confessional biography was an early product of

the new evangelical movement in Turkey.244 In this translation Tanrı was used as the word for

God and Allah was excluded, reflecting the spirit of Turkish secularism.

The KMŞ is listed as the publisher of the Hz. İsa booklets, also as the İsteme Adresi (“Request

from this address”) on the back of the title page, though these booklets were unrelated to the

KMŞ’s work on the Gospel of Mark mentioned above. The copyright holder, Ortadoğu

Yayınevi, was a euphemism for the informal translation team.

1978(?) — Hz. İsa: İncil'den Luka başlıklı bölüm. İsteme adresi: Büyüklanga, Aksaray,
Kızıltaş Sk. 31/1, İstanbul. No date or publisher is given.

This Gospel of Luke in Turkish was adapted from the Living Bible translation of Dr. Baban

for the soundtrack of the Jesus Film. The booklet was printed for distribution with the video

cassette and during screenings of the film in churches and theaters.

In the end the idea of a Turkish paraphrase was judged to be inappropriate and the project

was abandoned, although the Gospels of Matthew and John from this series were reprinted

in 1994. The Turkish sound track of the Jesus Film, still widely distributed in Turkey today,

was later edited in light of subsequent translations. The process that led to the publication of

Müjde (Good News, New Testament) in 1987 was already underway, initially in competition

with the Living Bible project but eventually superseding it.

244
Bruce Farnham, My Big Father: The story of Kenan Araz, a courageous witness (Bromley: STL Books, 1985;
reprinted by Paternoster, 1992).
 88
1983 — İncil. Translated by Hakkı Demirel. Ankara: Afşaroğlu Matbaası.

The publication of this New Testament is mentioned in the Catholic translation of 2009 as a

basis for the latter. It was reprinted in 1986.

1987 – Kitabı Mukaddes’in Deuterokanonik (Apokrif) Kitapları. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes

Şirketi.

For the first time since Haki and Ali Bey, the Old Testament Apocrypha was translated into

Turkish. The translator was a Catholic who is not identified. The introduction was written by

Father Luigi Iannitto of Sent Antuan Kilisesi (St. Anthony Roman Catholic Church). By now

the KMŞ was an ecumenical agency cooperating with the United Bible Societies (an

international and interdenominational consortium), so the KMŞ printed the Apocrypha on

behalf of the Catholic churches in Turkey.

A new Turkish Bible publishing company

Frustrated by the slow progress towards a modern translation, a committee of evangelicals

was formed in 1977 under the initial leadership of Peter Hopkins, intent on producing a

New Testament in contemporary Turkish. When approached for support, the KMŞ replied

that they had no current translation project underway. At a meeting on 27 October 1979 the

new committee decided to proceed independently, the Gospel of John and several of Paul's

letters being almost ready for publication. Ali Şimşek, one of the new wave of Turkish

Christians, was hired as translator, Graham Clarke and Pamela Richardson were the

exegetes, and Trevor Penrose was the tireless organizer. Şimsek had received training in

Bible translation at seminars organized by William Reyburn of the KMŞ.

Some time later the KMŞ revived their own New Testament project with Thomas Cosmades

as lead translator. He had already done a version of the Gospel of John entitled Su, Ekmek,

Yaşam (Water, Bread, Life).245 The independent committee was now asked to join this project

but declined. They felt Cosmades’ style was idiosyncratic and his use of Turkish neologisms

excessive. The new committee was committed to the principle that first drafts should be

produced by a native speaker and that, under the political circumstances of modern Turkey,

this lead translator should be a Turk. While Cosmades was bilingual and wrote excellent

Turkish, he was a Greek.

245
Recently reprinted under a German title, Das Jahr des Wassers: Eine Neue Kreatur.
 89
After this parting of the ways, work on two New Testament translations went forward. At

Penrose’s initiative the Translation Trust was incorporated in the UK in 1984 to raise funds

for Yeni Yaşam Yayınları (New Life Publications). YYY was incorporated in Turkey, which

now had two Bible publishers, though it is traditional to refer to the KMŞ as The Bible

Society.246

1987 – Müjde : İncil'in çağdaş Türkçe çevirisi (Good News: A Contemporary Turkish
Translation of the New Testament). İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları and The Translation
Trust. Paperback.

Ali Şimşek was the lead translator of this landmark translation, in association with Graham

Clarke, Trevor Penrose and others. Müjde opened a new period in Bible distribution in

Turkey. Its contemporary language and paperback format were suited to a new generation of

rapidly urbanizing Turks. Beginning in the 1970s small Christian fellowships of Turks

(mostly of Alevi background) and descendants of Ottoman Christians 247 had begun

gathering in Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara and Antalya. Though the Turkish Christian movement

was small, the growth of these churches accelerated after the publication of Müjde. It was

revised in 1994 and incorporated into the Kutsal Kitap in 2001 with a few modifications of

vocabulary.

Müjde abandoned the divine name Allah which had appeared prominently in Turkish

translations for centuries, substituting Tanrı to render the Greek Theos. Haki and Ali Bey

had also used Tanrı, but it had been edited out in Kieffer’s Bible of 1827, except for taŋrılar

(“the gods”). In the Kitabı Mukaddes of 1941 neither Tanrı nor tanrılar were used. The

translators of Müjde revived Tanrı because they felt that the language was developing in the

direction of the Öztürkçe (pure Turkish) as advocated by the language reformers, and

because the anticipated readership were the “secular moderns” who had already rejected

Islam.

246
This reflects the pattern in Britain where “The Bible Society” means the British and Foreign Bible Society, the
first one, as distinct from later offshoots such as the Trinitarian Bible Society.

247
Many of these people were Muslims and Turks who happened to have a Christian grandmother or great-
grandmother. Armenian women were taken by and/or chose to marry Turkish men to avoid massacre or forced
exile from Turkey during World War I. As their grandchildren explored their family history, some of them were
attracted to the new Turkish churches.
 90
Though much beloved of Turkish-speaking Christians, the God of the Müjde translation has

become anathema in the Turkish Islamic revival, where Tanrı is viewed as the pagan god of

the pre-Islamic Turks and of non-Muslims in general. Because the Kutsal Kitap removes Allah

from the vocabulary of the Bible, Muslim teachers refer to it disparagingly as Tanrı’nın kitabı

(the book of Tanrı). This Islamic rejoinder is a new development in the interreligious culture

of Turkey and can be specifically attributed to the publication of the Müjde. The de-

islamizing vocabulary of the Müjde became popular with Christians, but this contributed to

theological polarization of Christians and Muslims, stamping the new Turkish Bible with the

view of some Christians that Christians and Muslims worship two different deities.

1988 – İncil: Sevinç Getirici Haber — İncil’in Yunanca’dan çağdaş Türkçe’ye çevirisi.
İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.

This is the Contemporary Turkish New Testament of the KMŞ and a rival to YYY’s Müjde.

The translator was Thomas Cosmades (d. 2010). It can be read online, 248 in the BibleWorks

program, and in revisions printed in Turkey in 1998 and Germany in 2010. It is preferred by

some Christians in Turkey and in some Turkish churches in Germany.

1988 — Zebur -Mezmurlar (Psalms). Istanbul: Ohan Basımevi.

The foreword (önsöz) of this excellent new translation of the Psalms is signed by Xavier Nuss

and Hakkı Demirel, with a Roman Catholic imprimatur by Mons. Pierre Dubois, Vicar

Apostolic. No publisher is indicated other than the printing house. In 1996 it was lightly

edited and reprinted by the Turkish Bible Society (Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi) as part of the Old

Testament translation project that led to the publication of the Kutsal Kitap in 2001.

1991 — Bir Hekimin Kaleminden: Luka ve Elçilerin İşleri / A Doctor's Story: Luke and Acts.
İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları.

A diglot Turkish and English version from the Müjde for language learners. Still in print.

1991 — Çocuklar İçin Kutsal Kitap (The Bible for Children). Copenhagen: Scandinavian
Publishing House. Printed in Poland. ISBN: 87-7247-262-6

Featuring condensed Bible stories in large type and attractive color illustrations on every

page, this imported book is still for sale in Turkey. Küçükler için Resimli Kitabı Mukaddes was

an earlier children’s Bible based on Kenneth N. Taylor’s The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes

248
URL: http://incil.,info; http://www.kutsalkitap.gen.tr/incil/incil-thomas-cosmades; http://www.incil.biz/incil-
2/; http://presbiteryen.org/.
 91
with old-fashioned Sunday School pictures (Moody Press, 1956), published in a Turkish-

English diglot version in the 1960’s (exact date unknown). It was re-issued in a Turkish-only

version entitled Küçükler için Resimli Kutsal Kitap, with a new translation by Memduh Uysal

(İstanbul: KMŞ, 1990).

1993 — İncil’in Matta Bölümü (The Matthew Sectıon of the Gospel). İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam
Yayınları. 2. Basım. ISBN: 975-7509-08-6.

This appears to be a revision or reprint of Matthew from the 1987 Müjde in preparation for

the revised Müjde of 1994.

1994 — Göksel Söz: İncil’den Yuhanna bölümünün çağdaş Türkçeye yeni çevirisi.
Mecdiyeköy/İstanbul: Kutsal Kitap Araştırma Merkezi. Printed by Kurtiş Matbaası,
Sultanahmet/İstanbul. ISBN: 975-7889-09-1.

This distinctive translation of the Gospel of John was matched by a companion translation of

Matthew entitled Göksel Kral, both based on the Living Bible and reprinted from early work

on a Turkish Bible paraphrase in the 1970s (see above: 1978 — Hz. İsa’nın Öğretişleri). The

publisher, Kutsal Kitap Araştırma Merkezi (KKAM), is the Turkish Bible Correspondence

Course that began by advertising the İncil in Turkish newspapers in the 1980s and now has

an expanding ministry via its internet webpage.

1994 — Müjde, İncil'in çağdaş Türkçe çevirisi (Good News: A Contemporary Turkish
Translation of the New Testament). İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları and The Translation
Trust. Paperback.

This is a revision of the first edition of 1987.

1990-96 — Rut (Ruth), İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi, 1990 (ISBN 975 462 019 9). Yeşu
(Joshua), İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları, 1992. Yaratılış: İbranice Özgün Metinden
Yapılmış Yeni Çeviri (Tekvin) (Genesis), İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları, 1996 (ISBN: 975
462 025 3). Süleymanın Özdeyişleri (Proverbs), İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları, 1996
(ISBN 975 7509 60 4).

These are draft booklets of the Contemporary Turkish Old Testament, initiated as a joint

project of the KMŞ and YYY in 1989.

1995-96 — Zebur – Mezmurlar (Psalms). İstanbul: Müjde Yayıncılık Şirketi, 1995 (ISBN 975
7889 21 0). Tevrat (Genesis), İstanbul: Müjde Yayıncılık Şirketi, 2. baskı, 1996 (ISBN 975
7889 16 4), trans. Dr. Jur. Hakkı Demirel.

These two books in rough newsprint were published by Müjde Yayıncılık, a Roman Catholic

publishing effort, not to be confused with the New Testament translation entitled Müjde
 92
(1987 above). Hakkı Demirel also translated the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. Both

booklets listed here use Allah as one of the divine names. In the case of Genesis the

publication page tells us that it was translated from French, and that it was a second

printing; the title “Tevrat” is confusing, because the book actually consists of selections from

the Old Testament, not the Torah only. First printings of several of the booklets appeared in

the 1980’s, but I have no further information on the earlier period. As the Contemporary

Turkish Old Testament project of KMŞ and YYY proceeded the Catholics abandoned their

translation effort and endorsed the Kutsal Kitap, which was printed in a Catholic and

Orthodox version in 2003 (see below).

1996 — Zebur (Mezmurlar): İbranice özgün metinden yapılmış yeni çeviri (Psalms). Istanbul:
Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi. ISBN: 975-462-029-6. 180 pages.

A revision of the Turkish Psalms of 1988, now incorporated into the Contemporary Turkish

Old Testament project, with a new introduction and a useful glossary (sözlükçe) of Hebrew

terms in the Psalms.

1996 — Gideons New Testament in Turkish (Müjde) and English (NKJV). Yeni Yaşam
Yayınları. Reprinted in 2000. ISBN: 978 975 750 958 5.

1998 — İncil (Sevindirici Haber): İncil’in Yunanca aslından çağdaş Türkçe’ye çevirisi.
İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi and the United Bible Societies. ISBN: 975-462-041-5.
Pocket version: 975-462-013-X.

A revision of the Sevinç Getirici Haber of 1988, Cosmades’ translation of the New Testament,

revised by Behnan Konutgan and İhsan Özbek.

1999 — İncil: New Testament Türkçe/İngilizce Turkish/English. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes

Şirketi. 2nd edition, 2004. ISBN 975 462 0442 3.

This diglot version shows the New International Version in parallel columns with Tomas

Cosmades’ Turkish translation of the New Testament

2001 — Kutsal Kitap: Eski ve Yeni Antlaşma (Tevrat, Zebur, İncil). İstanbul: Kitabı
Mukaddes Şirketi ve Yeni Yaşam Yayınları/The Translation Trust. ISBN 975 462 046 6.

Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi (KMŞ) is the Turkish Bible Society that inherited the work of the ABS

and BFBS. Yeni Yaşam Yayınları (YYY) continued the work of a committee of evangelical

translators that had begun work in 1977 (see above). YYY adapted the revised Müjde of 1994

to harmonize with the Contemporary Turkish Old Testament it had produced in cooperation
 93
with KMŞ, and the two books were printed together under the title Kutsal Kitap (KK). The

translators for the Contemporary Turkish Old Testament included Ali Şimşek, Behnan

Konutgan, and Mahmud Solgun. Paul Lawrence and Ken Wiest were the Hebrew exegetes,

Graham Clarke the New Testament exegete.

A decision was made to use the YYY’s Müjde instead of KMŞ’s Sevinç Getirici Haber (the

Cosmades translation) as the New Testament text for the Protestant version of the Kutsal

Kitap. A consultant from the United Bible Societies, Krijn van de Jagt, was entrusted with the

decision. In choosing the Müjde he insisted that several words be changed: Kudüs became

Yeruşalim (Jerusalem), rahip became kâhin (priest), and topluluk became kilise (church). These

decisions were protested by some members of the translation team and remain controversial

to this day. For example, kilise is an undisguised adaptation of the Greek word ekklesia and

thus commits the Bible to the Turkish prejudice that “church” means a religious building of

Turkey’s enemies, the Armenians and Greeks.

The KK quickly became the Bible of most of the Protestant churches in Turkey. It is well

phrased in contemporary Turkish diction, making it an eminently readable and honored

piece of Turkish literature. Its style, however, is sometimes too formal for easy reading by

Turks with limited education, especially in the theological passages of the New Testament

epistles.

In the Bible’s title the Arabic word mukaddes (‘holy’, ‘sanctified’) was replaced by the

neologism kutsal (‘holy’, from the Turco-Mongolian root kut, ‘good fortune’), a word which

had first appeared in writing only in 1935. 249 The Kutsal Kitap thus announced even on its

cover that it was committed to Atatürk’s Turkish language reform.

The theonyms of the Müjde were now applied to the Old Testament, where the Hebrew

YHWH (Yahweh) is translated as RAB, ‘Adonai’ as Rab, and ‘Elohim’ as Tanrı. In the New

249
URL: http://www.nisanyansozluk.com/?k=kutsal
 94
Testament Tanrı is used consistently as a translation for the Greek ‘theos’, and Rab for

‘kurios’.

At the time of publication it was decided that YYY and Translation Trust would hold the

copyright to the New Testament, and KMŞ would hold the copyright to the Old Testament,

even though YYY translators were co-workers in the Old Testament project. Difficulties

resulting from copyright issues persist especially for YYY, which does not have its own

translation of the Old Testament. KMŞ holds copyright to the 1988 Cosmades translation of

the New Testament and to the Contemporary Turkish Old Testament as printed in the Kutsal

Kitap.

2001 — İncil - Müjde: İncil’in çağdaş Türkçe çevirisi. İstanbul: Zirve Yayıncılık ve Dağıtım
and Yeni Yaşam Yayınları / The Translation Trust. 5th printing, 2005. 538 pages. ISBN
975 8313 43 8.

A small red paperback, this is the New Testament (Müjde) from the Kutsal Kitap distributed

free of charge by Zirve. The “Four Spiritual Laws” (Tanrı’yı Kişisel Olarak Tanımak İster

Misiniz?) are appended at the end of the book. This is the İncil that Turkish readers receive if

they ask for one at a church or via evangelistic web sites.

2002 — Tevrat: Tora, Neviim, Ketuvim (Torah, Prophets, Books). İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes
Şirketi. ISBN 975-462-050-4.

Printed at the request of the Jewish community in Turkey, this is the Contemporary Turkısh

Old Testament from the Kutsal Kitap. Tevrat, a Turkish intonation of Torah, is used here as a

title for the Hebrew Old Testament as a whole.

2002 — İncil / Das Neue Testament: Hoffnung für Alle. Türkçe/Almanca Türkisch/Deutsch.
International Bible Society and Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi. Paperback. ISBN 975 462 0512.

A diglot printed for Turkish emigrés in Germany, this New Testament features the Turkish

translation by Cosmades.

2003 — Kutsal İncil, by Bünyamin Candemir. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.

Having been involved in Bible translation since the 1970s, Candemir, a Süryani Protestant,

believed that the Müjde and Kutsal Kitap had abandoned too many positive features of a

literal translation, but he recognized that the Kitabı Mukaddes was outdated.250 His

250
Jurg Heusser, “Die Geschichte des türkischen Bibels,“ the link for which at
http://www.orientdienst.de/muslime/tuerkische_bibel.shtml seems no longer to work.
 95
compromise version restored Allah to the New Testament as the translation of Theos. It

followed the King James Version in many respects, even to the point of italicizing words

italized in the KJV; for example, compare I Cor. 4:7. Candemir’s New Testament can be read

online at http://www.incil.biz/incil-4/ or downloaded from: http://presbiteryen.org/.

2003 — Kutsal Kitap ve Deuterokanonik (Apokrif) Kitaplar. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes

Şirketi. ISBN: 975-462-050-0.

This edition of the Kutsal Kitap including the Old Testament Apocrypha was printed for the

Catholic and Orthodox churches in Turkey, thus returning to the tradition of Haki and Ali

Bey who had done draft translations of these deutero-canonical books under Dutch

Reformed sponsorship in the 17th century. Behnan Konutgan revised the 1987 version of the

Turkish Apocrypha to conform its vocabulary to that of the Kutsal Kitap.

The New Testament in this Bible is the Sevinç Getirici Haber of 1999, a revision of Cosmades’

translation of the New Testament. YYY and The Translation Trust refused permission for

their New Testament to be printed in a Bible that would include the Apocrypha. Though

Luther himself had translated some of the Old Testament apocryphal books, Protestants

today do not accept them as holy writ. Be that as it may, this way of expressing a principle in

the case of the Kutsal Kitap was an unfortunate sign of the Christian disunity that still

surrounds the Bible. In the 21st century it is quite evident from the array of Turkish

translations in print that Christians disagree about which books belong in the Bible.

The deutero-canonical books can be read in Turkish at the Kutsal Kitap website along with

the rest of the Bible.251 The internet has fostered an accommodation that had been rejected

during disagreements over print publication.

2003 — Gizlenen Kitaplar (Apokrifler): Kutsal Kitap’tan Dışlanan Saklı Kutsal Öyküler.
Translated by Kadir Akın, published by Hakkı Bayraktar. İstanbul: Haktan Yayıncılık
No. 3, Hakîkat Yayınları No. 1. ISBN 975-288-420-2.

This is a Modern Turkish translation of the folio in Ali Bey’s Ottoman Turkish manuscript of

1664 that contains the deutero-canonical books (the so-called ‘Apocrypha’). The translator,

Kadir Akın (b. 1954) believes these books are important to include in the Turkish Bible for

three reasons: because they were part of Ali Bey’s Bible; because they include proverbs that

ring true in the Turkish literary tradition; and because he feels this complete Bible rooted
251
URL: http://kutsal-kitap.net/bible/tr/index.php?mc=3
 96
deeply in the Turkish translation tradition will appeal to students in the Islamic theological

faculties of Turkish universities.

“Apocrypha” in Greek means “hidden things” in the sense of secret wisdom, so “Gizlenen

Kitaplar” in the title of Akın’s book is a literal Turkish translation of the Greek word.

Unfortunately, however, the idea of hidden secrets feeds the perception of Muslims that

Christians are withholding pieces of the Bible that would tend to confirm Islam.

Kadir Akın is a Turkish Christian from Adapazarı who emigrated to Germany in 1986 and

became a German citizen. Hakkı Bayraktar is a Muslim publisher in Istanbul. Biographies

and photos of both men appear on the frontispiece. Akın approached Bayraktar about

publishing his work when KMŞ proceeded with a different translation of the Apocrypha.

Akın was the only translator and Bayraktar’s contribution was limited to editorial

presentation. According to Akın this collaboration of a Christian translator and a Muslim

publisher involved various diagreements, but it continued with the publication of a

complete Bible in 2007 (see below).

Akin did his translation between 1986 and 1989, but it was published only in 2003. He also

produced a valuable, but still unpublished, letter-for-letter transliteration of the Apocrypha

folio in Ali Bey’s manuscript. Thus far he has published only his translations, not the

transliterations.

Ali Bey’s manuscript of the Old Testament Apocrypha was not printed with the Turkish

Bible of 1827, and all the later Ottoman Turkish translations followed suit. The BFBS had

decided in 1826 to exclude the Apocrypha from any translation under its sponsorship;

clearly this decision was prompted by the upcoming publication of Kieffer’s version of Ali

Bey’s Bible. This decision influenced the future course of Bible translation in many

languages. As mentioned above, the Translation Trust took the same conservative Protestant

position in 2003, refusing permission for its version of the Turkish New Testament (Müjde) to

be printed in the Turkish Bible with Apocrypha that was being prepared by the KMŞ for the

Catholics and Orthodox. The exclusion that had been in force since 1826 had been reversed

by the ABS in 1964 and by the BFBS two years later, but YYY and the Translation Trust did

not follow suit.252

252
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Apocrypha#Modern_editions
 97
In Turkey KMŞ had already published a Catholic translation of the Apocrypha in 1987 (see

above). Later a revised version by Behnan Konutgan was included in the ecumenical version

of the Kutsal Kitap (KK2003), which went to press at about the same time as Akın’s

translation of Ali Bey’s Apocrypha (see above). So there were now three versions of the

Apocrypha in Turkish (the first two are cited in Akın’s bibliography, items 4 and 12). Akın

has told me that the KMŞ versions do not honor the Turkish translation tradition, because

they neither followed the text of Ali Bey nor used the same list of Apocryphal books which

he translated. This elevation of Ali Bey as the arbiter of Bible contents reflects the romantic

attachment to him felt by some Protestants in Turkey.

While the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Churches have always included the

deutero-canonical books, they disagree about which books to include. The Apocrypha, so

called, is a misnomer, because it is a fluid collection, with some books included by one

church that are rejected by another. Given this baffling controversy, it is not surprising that

the source texts for the Konutgan and Akın translations were different, and that the books

they included are (only slightly) different. Konutgan followed the Greek Septuagint of the

third century B.C., which was the Old Testament of the early Christians (often cited in the

New Testament) and of the Orthodox churches ever since; whereas Akın translated from Ali

Bey’s 17th-century Turkish manuscript, which had followed the Latin Vulgate. Though both

the content and the order of the books varied, the differences in the end turned out to be

minor: fifteen books are included in both the KK2003 and Akın translations, but KK2003

additionally includes Psalm 151 and IV Maccabbes (which Ali Bey had excluded) and

excludes the Prayer of Manassah (which Ali Bey had included).

On the title pages of the Akın/Bayraktar Apocrypha it is asserted that this version is “the

final text with omissions corrected” (“eksikleri giderilmiş son metin”). This seems to be

intended as a claim that Ali Bey’s text is the correct version, when in fact the whole issue of

“correctness” is disputed among the churches. See below (2007) for further discussion of the

Akın/Bayraktar version of the Ottoman Turkish Bible of 1885, to which this text of the

Apocrypha was appended.

The frontispiece and introduction repeat the widespread claim that Sultan Mehmet IV

ordered Ali Bey’s translation of the Bible. We know that Ali Bey’s translation was sponsored
 98
and paid for by a Reformed group in the Netherlands, not by the Sultan, and that Ali Bey

was a free man and no longer in the Sultan’s service when he did his Bible translation (see

the section on Ali Bey above).

2004 — Tehlim (Psalms). İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi. ISBN 975-462-029-6.

Printed at the request of the Jewish community in Turkey, this is the Zebur of 1996 with a

new cover.

2005 — Kutsal İncil: Pazar ve Bayram Günlerinde İncil’den Okunan Bölümler.253 In Syriac
(Süryanice) with a Turkish translation by Abune (Father) Hanna Aykurt. Beyoğlu,
İstanbul: Süryani Kadim Ortodoks Patrik Vekilliği. Out of print.

This is a diglot lectionary of readings for Sundays and festivals in the Syrian Orthodox

Archdiocese of Istanbul. It is a reminder that the minority languages of the Ottoman Empire

are still in ritual use in the ancient churches, but that the mother tongue of the laity is

Turkish.

The Syriac (Aramaic) New Testament is called the Peshitta and is claimed by this church as

the original New Testament in the language spoken by Jesus. While it is true that Jesus

spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic and that Syriac is the modern descendent of Aramaic,

Western scholars have produced documentary evidence that the Peshitta was a 5th-century

translation from the Greek New Testament.

2005 — Kutsal Kitap: Yeni Dünya Çevirisi. Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1800 pages. The New
Testament was also published as Kutsal Metinler – İncil.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses (Yahova Şahitleri) operate in a few Turkish cities. Viewed as heretical

by the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches alike, they distribute their Bible and

other literature in public places such as bazaars and recreation areas.

2006-2010 — Türkçe Çeviri ve Açıklamalarıyla Tora ve Aftara. Tora Bereşit 1, Tora Şemot 2,
Tora Vayikra 3, Tora ve Aftara 4, Tora ve Aftara/Devarim — Tevrat Tefsiri. 5 volumes, 17
x 25 cm. İstanbul: Gözlem Gazetecilik Basın ve Yayın A.Ş.254

This fresh Turkish translation of the Torah by Moşe Farsi features extensive rabbinic

commentary in Turkish according to “Judaic method, perspective and tradition.” Genesis,

253
URL: http://www.reyono.net/default.aspx?s=9&b=19.

254
Vol. 1, 538 pp., ISBN : 9757304638. Vol. 2, 860 pp., ISBN: 9757304794. Vol. 3. 903 pp., ISBN: 9944994022.
Vol. 4, 823 pp., ISBN: 9944994132. Vol. 5, 1075 pp., ISBN: 9944994347.
 99
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were printed separately in very large

volumes. The top of the left-hand pages displays the Turkish translation with the Hebrew at

the top of right-hand pages, and most of both pages is filled with the commentary. The

translation team for the commentary included Diani Yanni, Selin Saylağ and Baruh Beni

Danon. Farsi has also produced a book of ritual for the Jewish festival of Purim that includes

a translation of Esther, again with commentary.

Clearly Protestant Christians no longer monopolize Turkish Bible translation. Both Jewish

and Muslim publishers have now produced Turkish Bibles (for a Muslim publisher see the

next entry below ), and the Jehovah’s Witnesses as well (see above). This complements the

historic tradition of Turkish Bible translation in which both Muslims and Jews were active,

as discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 above.

This Turkish Torah is advertised on the internet255 where the publisher claims it as the first

direct translation from Hebrew into Turkish. This fails to acknowledge the Turkish

translation from Hebrew by Avraham Firkowicz in 1835 (see the section above on Turkish in

Hebrew characters). Moşe Farsi has apologized saying that he did not know about the

Firkowicz translation. Christian translators have always insisted that they followed the

original Hebrew, Aramic and Greek sources — a claim asserted on the title pages of the

Kitabı Mukaddes from the 19th century onward.

Today translation teams usually produce a first draft based on an English Bible (or another

modern language known to the translator) and then compare it with the Hebrew, Aramaic

and Greek texts, making adjustments as needed. In this sense it is probably true that Farsi’s

work is the first modern translation of the Torah drafted from the Hebrew, making it a

unique contribution by a bilingual Turkish and Hebrew speaker. It is also, according to Farsi,

“the only translation that follows the traditional Talmudic Jewish sources and

commentaries.”

Farsi is now working on Joshua and plans to translate the historical books of the Old

Testament. He is uncertain whether he will then move on to the Psalms and other poetic

books, noting that they may not lend themselves to the Modern Turkish diction of which he

is capable. This is a prescient comment. As compared with the rich vocabulary of Ottoman

255
URL: http://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/default.asp?id=84212
 100
Turkish, the Turkish of the modern language reform has been impoverished by the exclusion

of many words of Arabic and Persian origin. Modern Turkish translations of Isaiah and

Hosea, for example, display a rather repetitive and unnuanced vocabulary as compared with

English translations, let alone the Hebrew.

Moşe Farsi is a Jew born and educated in Istanbul and his mother tongue is Turkish. He is a

Turkish citizen now living in Israel.

2007 — Ali Bey’in Osmanlıca (1662-1666) Çevirisine Göre ‘Ekümenik’ Kutsal Kitap:
Tevrat-Zebur-İnciller Ve Tüm Deuterokanonik / Apokrif Ekleri. Translated by Kadir
Akın, published by Hakkı Bayraktar. İstanbul: Haktan Yayıncılık. ISBN 978 975 01888 0
0.

This is a translation into Modern Turkish of the Kitabı Mukaddes of 1885, supplemented with

a modernized version of the Old Testament Apocrypha in Ali Bey’s draft manuscript of 1662-

1664,. The translator is Kadir Akın, a Turkish Christian and German citizen (see above: 2003,

“Gizlenen Kitaplar”). The thorough set of cross-references that were published in the 1885

version are included in this translation — a useful feature for Bible students. 256.

The cover and introduction to the book contain a number of statements by the publisher

intended to appeal to Muslim readers in the faculties of Islamic studies in Turkish

universities, where neo-Ottomanist sentiment is strong. For example, the 1885 version of the

Kitabı Mukaddes is asserted to be the only “official” Turkish Bible because it was published

with the permission of Sultan Abdülhamid II and the Ottoman Ministry of Public

Instruction. The cover also claims that the whole book is from the translation of Ali Bey,

reflecting the popular view that any Ottoman Turkish Bible must have come ultimately from

Ali Bey. In fact, however, the 17th-century text of Ali Bey’s Bible is a distant ancestor of the

1885 version — not unlike the soup of the soup of the soup that Nasreddin Hoja served to

the friend of a friend of a friend! Even Kieffer’s Bible of 1827 was reflected quite weakly in

the 1878/1885 version, a new translation in its own right.

In the Akın/Bayraktar Bible the Apocryphal books are interleaved with other Old Testament

books as in the Septuagint of the Orthodox churches — the pattern also approved by the

United Bible Societies. Ali Bey, however, had followed Luther’s Bible and the KJV in putting

256
The cross-references in the Kutsal Kitap of 2001 are minimal. The interpretive notes in the Açıklamalı Kutsal
Kitap are the best available in Turkish.
 101
the Apocryphal books in a separate folio; 257
the order of the books in this folio is preserved in

Akın’s earlier book (see above).

A polemical argument from Akın's Turkish Apocrypha as published in 2003 is repeated here.

Now we read that these books have been “deliberately hidden” (adeta gizlenen) from the

Turkish reading public, presumably by the Protestant translators. Again the title page asserts

that this is the “final text with omissions recovered” (eksikleri giderilmiş son metin). The

charge that there are books missing from the Turkish Bible is true in the limited sense that

Ali Bey’s translation of the Apocrypha was excluded from the 19th-century Turkish Bibles.

Unfortunately it also feeds the perception of Muslims that the text of the Bible has been

“changed” (değiştirilmiş) with an assertion that does not apply to the Catholic and Orthodox

version of the Kutsal Kitap.

Kadir Akın is a serious scholar of Ali Bey’s translation of the deutero-canonical books. His

energy as an independent translator is evident also in his letter-for-letter transliterated text

of the entire Kitabı Mukaddes of 1885. Completed 25 years ago, this typescript has not yet

been prepared for publication.

2008 — Das Neue Testament Deutsch-Türkisch İncil Yeni Antlaşma Almanca-Türkçe.

Dillenburg: Christliche Verlagsgesellschaft. German Elberfelder version of 2006 with the
revised Müjde of 1994. ISBN: 10: 3417256380 and 13: 9783417256383.

2009 — İncil. Translated by Dominik Pınar. İsteme Adresi: Sent Antuan Kilisesi, Beyoğlu
İstanbul, printed by Baskı Sak Ofset Ltd. Şti. ISBN 978-605-89497-2-0.

The publication page of this translation of the New Testament tells us that it was based on

Wendel’s Turkish Gospels of 1959 and Hakkı Demirel’s New Testament of 1983. Dominik

Pınar is identified as the translator and P. Jacob Xavier as commentator and theological

evaluator. The introduction was signed by Luigi Padovese, the late Roman Catholic bishop

for Anatolia, then resident in İskenderun.

2009 — Kutsal Kitap: Eski ve Yeni Antlaşma (Tevrat, Zebur, İncil). İstanbul: Kitabı
Mukaddes Şirketi ve Yeni Yaşam Yayınları. ISBN 978 975 462 069 6.

This is a minor revision of the Kutsal Kitap of 2001 on high-quality thin paper with attractive

imitation leather binding. A few minor corrections were made to the text.

257
Leiden University Library, Cod. Or. 390c (1664) and 1101e (1665).
 102
2010 — Açıklamalı Kutsal Kitap (AKKIT). İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları and The
Translation Trust. ISBN 978 975 9062 69 9

AKKIT is the first Study Bible in the Turkish language, initiated by Trevor Penrose before his

death. The editorial team was led by Ali Şimşek, assisted by Neslihan Yangın, and included

Turkish Bible scholars, reflecting the growing maturity of the Protestant movement in

Turkey. Among other Bible helps promised when the Kutsal Kitap appeared in 2001, this one

is among the most useful. The NIV Study Bible was the basis for the commentary, but

adjustments were made and new notes written for the Turkish context. Commentary is well

presented from an evangelical perspective and includes several (including Catholic,

Orthodox and Pentecostal) perspectives on disputed issues, such as sacraments, women in

leadership, Arminian vs. Pentecostal vs. Reformed interpretations, etc. The introduction

includes an outdated biography of Ali Bey adapted from Cooper (1901).

2010 — Yeni Yaşam Açıklamalı Kutsal Kitap (YAKK). Springfield, Missouri, USA: Life
Publishers International. Printed in South Korea. Imported to Turkey by Yeni Yaşam
Yayınları. ISBN: 978 0 7361 0415 9

Launched a month after AKKIT, YAKK is a Pentecostal Study Bible printed by the

Assemblies of God and based on The Full Life Study Bible (NIV): An International Study Bible

for Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians (Zondervan, 1992), which is also called the Life in the

Spirit Study Bible and the Fire Bible in other editions. The explanatory notes in YAKK were

translated from this Bible, and the Turkish Bible text is a new literal translation based on the

NIV. Ali Şimşek was the project director and Alper Özharar the lead translator of the notes.

Though a Study Bible in Turkish had been long awaited, it was a surprise when two of them

appeared in the same year. One hopes that the Turkish churches will benefit from the

opportunity to examine the sectarian process suggested by two differently annotated Bibles.

YYY signed separate contracts for the two projects with different funding sources.

Publication of Christian books in Turkey is often dependent on foreign funds, which can

influence publishing decisions.

2010 — İncil: Sevinç Getirici Haber — İncil’in Yunanca’dan çağdaş Türkçe’ye çevirisi.
Siegen: Mission für Süd-Ost-Europa. Istanbul: Gerçeğe Doğru Kitapları.
 103
A revision by Thomas Cosmades and Hayrettin Piligir of the same title of 1988, based on

online testing. Downloadable in a red-letter version from http://presbiteryen.org/. Cosmades

died in September 2010 shortly after the publication of this revision.

2010 — Başlangıçta Kelâm Vardı: İncil’in Yuhanna Bölümü — Yuhanna: Kolay Anlaşılır
İncil. İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları. 106 pp.

This was a trial edition of the Gospel of John for the HADİ New Testament published in

2012. Many of the criticisms of the secular vocabulary of the Müjde and Kutsal Kitap have

been addressed in this new translation. See below.

2010 — Süleyman’ın Meselleri (Proverbs). Türk Standart Versiyonu (TSV).

TSV is a personal project of İlhan Keskinöz based on translations he makes during sermon

preparation. Thus far only the Proverbs of Solomon are posted on the internet:

http://incil.info. http://www.hristiyanforum.com/forum/suleymaninozdeyisleri-f699/.

2011 — İncil-i Şerif'in Yüce Anlamı - Havari Matta'nın Kaleminden - Orijinal Metin ve
Kelime Kelime Türkçe Çevirisi ile birlikte. İstanbul: Sabeel Media. ISBN: 978-975-256-
340-7. 189 pages.

This paraphrase of the Gospel of Matthew features contextualized vocabulary and

explanatory footnotes for Muslim readers, following the pattern of “Muslim Idiom

Translations” (MIT) that had appeared recently in other languages of the Muslim world. On

facing pages there is a Turkish interlinear translation under the Greek New Testament text in

romanized characters — the first time the original Greek text has been printed in a Turkish

Bible.

A Turkish Muslim drafted the paraphrase from a contemporary Arabic New Testament, and

this was corrected by Muslim and Christian consultants. The Islamic theonym Mevla is used

for Father and Vekil for Son of God. However controversial, these terms were intended to

counteract the perception of many Muslims that Christians proclaim Mary as God's consort

who bore him a son. Because the Gospels do not say such a thing, it can be argued that the

literal terms Father (Baba) and Son (Oğul) miscommunicate the intended meaning. Baba and

Allah'ın Oğlu are shown on the interlinear pages and explained also in the footnotes, but the

less literal wordings are used in the main text, an MIT paraphrase.
 104
This project revived the Ottoman tradition of Christian editors collaborating with Muslim

translators, and of the early Turkish translations of Ali Bey and Kieffer, when Muslims were

the anticipated audience. Most Turkish Christian leaders opposed this translation, as did

some churches in the West. In the early months of 2012 the Matthew paraphrase was

attacked in an internet petition campaign on the (English-language) website of Biblical

Missiology, an American entity. In an inquiry arranged by the World Evangelical Alliance in

early 2013, a committee of theologians concluded that the “divine familial names” (a new

term sparked by this controversy) should be translated with a near equivalent familial term

in the target language.

2012 — Halk Dilinde İncil: Sadeleştirilmiş İncil Tercümesi (HADİ) - [The Gospel in Popular
Language: A simplified translation of the Gospel]. İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları.

After a trial publicaion of the Gospel of John in 2011, HADİ was released in November 2012

with a grand ceremony at an Istanbul hotel. YYY has a contract with the World Bible

Translation Center and Bible League to publish a Turkish Easy-To-Read Bible for minimally

literate readers. The vocabulary is simple, the sentences are short, and the print is large.

Some Islamic terms from Ali Bey and the Kitabı Mukaddes are restored to the text, such as

Allah for God, Kelâm for the Word, and Kudüs for Jerusalem. The footnotes give brief

explanations of key terms, including two different explanations of Allah’ın Oğlu (Son of God)

contextualized for Muslim audiences. When Jesus calls God his Father, this is translated

Semavi Baba, meaning Heavenly Father but with an Islamic nuance in the word for heaven

(Muslims often refer to Islam, Christianity and Judaism as the semavi dinler). Similarly,

Allah’ın Hükümrânlığı translates Jesus’ term “kingdom of God” with an Arabic flavor,

replacing the de-islamized expression Tanrı’nın Egemenliği in the Kutsal Kitap. The traditional

Arabic term mürit for “disciple” has resulted in controversy among Turkish Christians of

secularist leaning, who associate the term with Islamic sects in conservative Muslim

countries.

The lead translator is Ali Şimşek, who was also the translator of the Müjde and one of the

translators of the Kutsal Kitap. After he had spent 25 years of his life on one translation, his

commitment to take on the HADİ project is evidence of his desire to see the Bible made

available to both secularist and conservative audiences in the Turkish reading public.
 105

Chapter 6
Turkish in Cyrillic Letters (Bulgarian Turkish)

Turkish as spoken in Bulgaria is essentially the same language spoken in Turkey but with

some Bulgarian vocabulary. Turkish is not taught in Bulgarian schools, so many Turkish

speakers cannot read or write Turkish.

1992 – Müjde. Transliterated into Cyrillic characters. Printed at WEC Press, UK

When a Christian movement began among the Turkish-speaking Millet and Roma ethnic

groups in Bulgaria, the Müjde of 1987 was printed for them in Cyrillic characters.

1996 – Mezmurlar (Zebur). Downloadable in either Turkish or Cyrillic characters:

http://www.incilbg.com/.

2004 – Indjil: Yeni Ahit, Yeni Antlaşma. Bulgaristan Türkçesi. Sevda OOD, Plovdiv.
Downloadable in either Turkish or Cyrillic characters: http://www.incilbg.com/.

Thomas Otto and a team of native speakers of Bulgarian Turkish produced these Psalms and

New Testament in the Bulgarian dialect. A note to Türkiyeliler (Turks of Turkey) appears on

the website asking them to be tolerant of the Bulgarian words that do not conform to

Istanbul Turkish (İstanbul türkçesine uygun olmayan, hatta kimi bulgarca sözlere rastladığınız

zaman onu hoşgörü ile karşılayın).

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 106

Chapter 7
Related Languages

Discounting Bible excerpts in Kipchak in the Codex Cumanicus, Bible translations in Turkic

languages outside the Ottoman Empire began with Henry Brunton’s Karass (Nogai Tatar)

New Testament in 1813 as revised by Dickson: II ncil-i mukaddes, yani, II sa Masihin yeni

vasiyeti (Astragan: Yuḥannaa Mitcc il, 1818).258 In 1820 this translation was modified by

Charles Fraser for distribution among the Kazakhs, and then revised a number of times as

late as 1910, but it still sounded more like Tatar than Kazakh. For many of the Turkic

languages (Azerbaijani, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Uyghur, Uzbek, etc.), short chronologies of variable

historical quality can be read online.259 The shadow of Russia, China, and Iran — not Turkey

— hovered over these translation efforts. They remind us that Turkic languages in some

places are still printed in Arabic characters (Uyghur in China; Azeri in Iran) and in Cyrillic

letters (Kazak, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Uzbek; also Uyghur in the former Soviet lands).

The Bible in Kurmanji Kurdish, Kitêba Pîroz: Peyhama Kevin û Peymana Nû, was published in

Latin characters in Germany by GBV-Dillenburg in 2004 and can be read online. 260 When the

Turkish government liberalized its Kurdish policy and allowed publications in Kurdish, the

Turkish Christian publisher, Gerçeğe Doğru, printed a Kurmanji New Testament entitled

Peymana Nû Încîl: Mizgînîya Îsa Mesih in 2006. The Gospel of Luke in the Zaza dialect has

been translated for use as the soundtrack in the film, Jesus. For Iraqi Kurds the Sorani

Kurdish Bible in the Arabic alphabet was published in 1998 and can be read at the Kurdish

Christian website above. Kurdish is written also in Cyrillic characters in the former Soviet

countries. In the Ottoman period the American Bible Society had printed Isaac G. Bliss’s

Kurmanji Kurdish New Testament in Armenian script (Istanbul: A.H. Boyajian, 1872;

preceded by the Gospels in 1857).

Translations in the non-Turkish languages of the Ottoman Empire were done by several of

the same 19th-century translators we have encountered in connection with the Turkish Bible.

258
Hakan Kırımlı, “Crimean Tatars, Nogays, and Scottish missionaries,” Cahiers du monde russe 45: 61-108. URL:
http://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_ARTICLE=CMR_451_0061.

259
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_by_language.

260
URL: http://www.kitebipiroz.com/en/bible.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 107
Their competency in multiple European and Oriental languages reminds us of Ali Bey. For

example:

Elias Riggs was the translator of both the Bulgarian and Modern Armenian Bibles (the latter

not to be confused with the Armeno-Turkish Bible). His work was so influential that he is

considered one of the heroes of the Bulgarian revolution; correspondingly he is also viewed

as a missionary meddler in Turkish politics during the late Ottoman period.261

Henry D. Leeves revised the Modern Greek New Testament (not to be confused with his

Græco-Turkish New Testament), which had been commissioned initially by the BFBS agent,

Robert Pinkerton, from Archimandrite Hilarion, a Lebanese Greek. Leeves also translated

the Old Testament into Modern Greek. Complicating the project was the Greek revolt

against Ottoman rule in the 1820s that led to Leeves’ withdrawal from Constantinople to

Corfu and later to Athens. 262 Bible translation influenced the revolutionary politics of the

Ottoman Christian minorities.

In the 19th century around 500,000 Jews lived in the Ottoman lands, 263 with substantial

communities in Salonica, Smyrna and Constantinople. Accepting responsibility for a project

first envisioned by Robert Pinkerton,264 William Schauffler and Rabbi Shemtob translated the

Old Testament into Ladino, the language of the Sephardic Jews, which is written in Hebrew

characters and is also called Judezmo and Hebræo-Spanish. Schauffler’s Ladino Bible was

printed in Vienna in 1842 by the ABS. The New Testament revised by Schauffler from the

1747 version265 was reprinted as late as 1922. Today there are still 100,000 Ladino speakers in

Bulgaria, Greece, Israel, and Turkey. A new online Ladino New Testament in Latin characters

appeared in 1999.266

261
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Riggs.

262
Browne, op.cit., pp. 47ff.

263
Greene, p. 22.

264
Browne, op.cit., p. 47.

265
URL: http://www.worldscriptures.org/pages/ladino.html.
266
URL: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/JPN-ladino.html; http://www.afii.org/ ladtexts/ojbx_ldn.pdf.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 108

Chapter 8
A Brief Comparison: Turkish Translations of the Koran

The Koran was not widely available in Turkish during the Ottoman period. 267 The

manuscript tradition consisted mostly of commentaries under a Turkish rendering (me’al,

“meaning”) of the Arabic Koran. Such translations were often fragmentary and remained, in

any case, in manuscript. The earliest Turkish me’al of the complete Koran, usually dated to

1424 C.E. (820 A.H.), was done by Muhammed b. Hamza, a Seljuk Turkish preacher in

Baghdad.268 Half a millenium later this was transcribed into Latin (modern Turkish)

characters by Ahmet Topaloğlu (1976-78), who also produced a valuable companion

dictionary of its 15th-century Turkish vocabulary.269

The earliest printing of any book containing the Koran in Ottoman Turkish was the

commentary of Ahmed Salih b. Abdullah, Zübdet'ü'l-asar el-mevahib ve‘l-envar (A work of

conclusions: Contributions and enlightenings). It was translated in manuscript in 1685 and is

said to have been printed in Istanbul in 1875. The academic authority on the history of the

Turkish Koran, Muhammed Hamidullah, tells us the location of the 17th-century manuscript

of the Zübdetü'l-asar in the Istanbul University Library, but fails to mention the editor or

publisher of the printed volume.270 Online lists of Turkish me’aller of the Koran271 seem

always to be based on Hamidullah’s description. I am not aware of an academic study of the

Zübdetü'l-asar.

The conservative Sultan Abdul Hamid II had opposed the translation of the Koran. When

the Young Turks overthrew him in 1909 an Islamic journal in Istanbul, Sirat-ı Müstakim,

immediately printed some Turkish verses of the Koran with commentary. The first complete
267
M. Brett Wilson, “The first translations of the Qur'an in modern Turkey (1924–38),” International Journal of
Middle East Studies 41: 419-435 (2009); F. Lyman MacCallum, “Turkey discovers the Koran,” The Moslem World
23: 24-28 (1933); “The Koran in Turkish,” The New York Times, April 12, 1914; “List of translations of the
Qur'an,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_translations_of_ the_Qur%27an#Turkish.

268
Türk İslam Müzesi, manuscript no: 40.

269
Ahmet Topaloğlu, Muhammed bin Hamza XV. Yüzyıl başlarında yapılmış Satır-Arası Kur’an Tercümesi, 1.
cilt (giriş ve metin), 2. cilt (sözlük). (İstanbul: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, 1976).

270
Aziz Kur’an: Çeviri ve Açıklama (İstanbul: Beyan Yayınları, 2000), pp. 131-142 (a list of Turkish translations),
here p. 133; Kur’an-ı Kerim Tarihi ve Türkçe Tefsirler Bibliografiyası (İstanbul: Yağmur Yayınları, 1965).

271
For example, http://www.kuranmeali.com/turkcemealler.asp.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 109
Ottoman Turkish translation of the Koran alone, i.e. without commentary, was entitled

Terjumat el-Kuran and was printed in 1913. The publisher, İbrahim Hilmi Efendi, promoted it

as an anonymous translation, but controversy erupted immediately.

The attempt to hide the identity of the author, a Syrian Catholic named Zeki
Megamiz, precipitated a scandal about providing Muslims with a translation by a
Christian. A journal article warned the Sheikh ül-Islam’s office about the danger,
and the authorities prevented the distribution of this book. 272

Conservative Muslims feared Christian translators, just as conservative Christians have been

suspicious of Muslim translators for 350 years.

Immediately after the Turkish Revolution three Turkish versions of the Koran appeared in

the space of one year (1924-25). This was before Atatürk’s language reform, so all three were

Ottoman Turkish in Arabic characters. The three were Hüseyin Kâzım Kadri’s Nur’ul-Beyan

(The light of clarification), again by the printer İbrahim Hilmi; and two translations both

entitled Kur’an-ı Kerim Tercümesi by Süleyman Tevfik and Cemil Sait (Dikel). All three were

rejected by Muslim scholars: Kadiri’s because he had only informal training in Arabic,

Tevfik’s because he was considered a literary rogue, and Dikel’s because his source text was

a French version, not the Koran in Arabic.

What these incidents reveal is that the Turkish reading public had become impatient with

the conservative commentary tradition that resisted the “innovations” of the then 450-year-

old European print culture. Turkish printers were modern men and responded to popular

demand for the holy book, but their initial efforts failed because they were idiosyncratic and

did not consult the ulema scholars.

Worried about religious chaos, the Parliament (Meclis) of the Turkish Republic demanded an

official Turkish version of the Koran, and the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet)

assigned the task eventually to M. Hamdi Yazır Elmalılı. The result was not a Koran for the

people but a Turkish text of the Koran embedded in a nine-volume commentary entitled Hak

Dini Kur’an Dili (1935-38).273 This erudite work is still used in Turkish theological training,

and the translation itself is still in print and widely respected, but at the time it did not meet

the popular demand that had inspired the three earlier printings of the Koran in Turkish. In

272
Wilson (2009), p. 422, referring to Ahmet Şirani, “Kur’an-ı Kerim Tercümesi Hakkında,” Hayr’ül-Kelam 1 (17):
136 (1914).

273
URL: http://www.kuran.gen.tr/?x=s_main&kid=3

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 110
1955 a new translation was published by Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı, emeritus professor of

Turkish Sufism at Istanbul University, and circulated widely. More recently, translations

have proliferated. Each of the Muslim brotherhoods (tarikat) has its favorite translation.

Yaşar Nuri Öztürk’s Kur'an-ı Kerim ve Türkçe Meali, first published in 1993, is said to be the

most printed book in Turkish history.274

The proliferation of translations has resulted in an outcry against scholars who are said to be

“changing” the Koran. Vernacular versions of the Koran are called me’al, which means

“meaning” rather than “translation”, because the words of God are felt to be so holy that

they cannot be translated accurately. In practice Muslim scholars simply paraphrase the

Koran based on the tefsir (commentary) tradition in which they were trained, and then print

their paraphrase next to or under the Arabic original. This results in variable Turkish

representations of the meaning of the Arabic text. Accusations of scholars making “errors”

have arisen among devout but unlettered Muslims, who wonder why the various me’al do

not agree. In effect, Turkish Muslims are now being exposed to the same kind of confusing

mix of translations that English-speaking Christians have experienced since the first revision

of the King James Version in 1888. Many and widely varying translations of the sacred text

now compete for the book-buying dollar and lira.

The Islamic idea of the Koran as an eternal and immutable text that came down from heaven

complicates the Muslim translator’s work. Over the centuries Christian translators have

aspired to produce a “faithful” rendering of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, but to them

“faithful” has never meant “exact”. Translation necessarily involves a contextualization of

the message of the holy book in a literary form that reflects the modern culture to which it is

addressed.

Studying the Koran online is a normal feature of Muslim life today. Anyone with one

Turkish lira to pay for one hour at an internet café can listen to Arabic oral recital of the

Koran while reading the Turkish transliteration simultaneously. Multiple Turkish

translations are viewable at Kuranmealleri.com and Kuran.gen.tr. The website of the

government’s Ministry of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri Bakanlığı) features many resources

including its own Turkish translation, downloadable as a PDF or DOC file:

Diyanet.gov.tr/kuran/default.asp.

274
URL: http://www.kuran.gen.tr/?x=s_main&kid=2; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt
%C3%BCrk

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 111
APPENDIX I : THE TURKISH BIBLE VERSIONS IN STRICT
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER (without annotations)

This list shows all the Turkish Bibles and Bible portions I know of, but it is not annotated.

Where the exact title is known it appears in italics. Corrected or additional publication data

may be sent to bruce.p@post.harvard.edu. Please provide a scan of the title and back-title

pages if possible.

KEY:
Ottoman Turkish (Arabic) and Modern Turkish (Latin) translations are shown in black,
Turkish in Hebrew characters in purple,
Turkish in Greek characters in blue,
Turkish in Armenian characters in brown,
Turkish in Bulgarian Cyrillic characters in green.

circa 1550 – Tercüme-i Kasîde-i Fatlubni Tecidni. Translated by Ahmed b. Mustafa, a.k.a
Leâlî.

1659 — Kütüb-ü pâklerin Türkîde bir nümûdar-ı yahşi: Kadis Yuhanna Resûlün Türkî
zebâna mütercem olmuş üç risalesidir / Specimen Turcicum S. S. Scripturæ: sive, tres
epistolæ S. Johannis apostoli turcice redditæ. Translated by William Seaman. London: Jacob
Flesher.

1661 – Turkish Bible in manuscript, by Yahya bin İshak, a.k.a. Hâki.

1662-64 – Turkish Bible in manuscript, by Wojciech Bobowski, a.k.a. Ali Bey. This draft was
followed by a “fair copy” in 1665.

1665-73 – Mezamir, (Psalms 1-14), by Ali Ufkî, a.k.a. Ali Bey

1666 – İncil-i Mukaddes : yani lisan-ı Türkî’ye tercüme olunan bizim Rabbimiz Yesû
Mesih’iŋ yeŋi ahid ve vasiyeti / Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Testamentum Novum Turcice
Redditum. Translated by William Seaman. Oxford: Henry Hall.

1680 – İncil-i Mukaddes yani lisan-ı türkî'ye tercüme olunan bizim Rabbimiz Yesû Mesihiŋ
yeŋi ahd-i vesâyeti. New Testament manuscript in two folios in the Bibliotheque
Nationale, Paris. Copied by Hanna b. Neta Shamlu from Seaman's New Testament
(above).

1692 – Emsaleʾ-i Süleymân. A Turkish manuscript of the Proverbs of Solomon in the hand of
Hanna b. Neta Shamlu. Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.

1735 – Lucæ Evangelium Turkice. Edited by Johann Heinrich Callenberg from Seaman’s New
Testament. Halle: Typographia Orientali Instituti Judaici et Muhammedici. Followed in

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 112
1747 by Pauli Apostoli Epistola ad Romanos Turcice, in 1749 by Acts, and in the 1750’s by
the Gospel of John, the First Epistle of John, and Hebrews.

1739 – Quatuor prima capita Geneseos turcice et latine ex gemino Pentateuchi Mosaici mss.
Codice Turcico eruit, Latine vertit, notulasque adspersit Nicolaus Guillelmus
Schoederus. Lipsiæ [Leipzig]: Literis Takkianis.

1782 – The Psalms in Græco-Turkish. Printed in Venice.

1818 – Acts & Epistles in Græco-Turkish. Printed in Venice.

1819 – Kitab ül-ahd el-cedid el-mensub ila Rabbina İsa el-Mesih. Edited by Jean Daniel
Kieffer. Paris: Imprimérie Royale on behalf of the British and Foreign Bible Society.

1819 — New Testament in Armeno-Turkish. Translated by Seraphim Khojentzi. Printed by

the Bible Society of St. Petersburg.

1820-21 – The Four Gospels in manuscript. Translated by İsmail Ferruh.

1822 – The Psalms in Græco-Turkish. Revised by Henry D. Leeves.

1822 — New Testament in Armeno-Turkish. Translated by Keghamian of Erivan.

1826 – Ahdi Cedid yani Nea Diathēkē: Rapp-i Ïisa el-Mesihin Ahdi Tzedidinin Gionani
Lisanindan Tourk Lisanina Tertzoumesi. Istampolda, De Kasponoun Pasmahanesinde.
Transcribed by Henry D. Leeves from Kieffer’s New Testament of 1819.

1827 – Kitab ül-ahd el-atik [and] Kitab ül-ahd el-cedid el-mensub ila Rabbina İsa el-Mesih
(Biblia Turcica). Edited from Ali Bey’s manuscript by H.F. von Diez and J.D. Kieffer
(called Ali Bey’s Bible or Kieffer’s Bible). Two volumes. Paris: Dar el-Taba’at el-Melkuttat
el-Mi’marat (Imprimérie Royale), on behalf of the BFBS.

1831 — The New Testament in Armeno-Turkish. Translated by William Goodell with Bishop
Dionysius and Vartabed Gregory. Malta: CMS Press.

1832-35 — Torah, Turkish in Hebrew characters. Translated by Avraham Firkowicz, Yitshaq

b. Samuel ha-Kohen, and Simha b. Yosef Eğiz. Printed as a di-glot book with Hebrew
and Turkish (Hebræo-Turkish) on facing pages, by Arab-Oğlu Bolus (Paulus), Ortaköy,
Greater Istanbul.

1835 – Genesis yani Mahlukatin yaratilicinin kitabi..

1836 – Hazreti Musanın pes kitaplari hem tahi Navi Oğlu Iesunun kitapi, ki İngilterranin
ve piutun dunyanın sair her taraflarına mukattes kitaplarin tagilmasi itzun İngiliz
memleketinte muntazim olan Refikatin marifeti ile Atzik Turktze lisana tertzime
olunup Tzezirei Syrata Amerikali I.I. Robertsonun Pasmasinta tap olunmus tur.

1839 – The Græco-Turkish Bible. Translated by Leeves and Christo Nicolaides. Printed in
Athens and Beirut.

1843 — Old Testament in Armeno-Turkish. Translated by William Goodell and Panayotes

Constantinides. Smyrna: ABCFM Press.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 113
1844 – Iob, Paraoimia Solomontos, Ekklisiastis yani Iobun, Emsali Solomonun ve Vaizin
Kitapi ki Halia Meytzetten Atzik tirktzege terzume olunup…. (same printing data as
the 1836 Pentateuch and Joshua).

1852 – Kitab-ı Sifr-ül Halika ve Mezamir-i Davud. Revised by Türabi Efendi from Kieffer’s
version. London: BFBS.

1853-54 – Kitab-ı İncil-i Şerîf el-mensub ila Rabbina İsa el-Mesih. William Watts nâm
şahsıŋ tabhânesinde tab ve temsil olunmuşdır fi sene 1854 el-mesîhiyye [London].

1855 – El-İncil ila rivayet-i Matta el-Aziz. Edited by James W. Redhouse, revising Türabi
Efendi. Two bilingual versions, Turkish-English and Turkish-Italian. London: BFBS.

1856 – Old Testament in Græco-Turkish. Revised by Goodell and Constantinides

Philadelpheus. Printed in Istanbul.

1857 – Kitab ül-ahd el-cedid el-mensub ila Rabbina İsâ el-Mesih. Revised by Türabi Efendi
by J.W. Redhouse, checked by Goodell and William G. Schauffler. London: BFBS.

1862 – İncil-i Şerîfiŋ tercümesiniŋ gûnesi olmak üzere ol kitab-ı mukaddesiŋ işbu cild-i
evveli Harûtûn nâm tabâ'ıŋ matbaʿasında tab ve temsil kılınmışdır - 1862 fi sene-i
milâdiye [İstanbul]. Containing the Four Gospels and Acts only. Translated by William
G. Schauffler, William Goodell and Selim Efendi.

1862 — Kitab-ı Şerif yani Ahd-i Atik ve Ahd-i Cedid: Aslı İbrani ve Yunancadan Türkçeye
tercüme olunup İstanbul’da Şirket-i Şarkiye Basımhanesinde tab olundu. 1200 pp. Translated
by Goodell and Panayotes.

1863 – Old Testament in Græco-Turkish. Revised again by Goodell and Constantinides.

Istanbul.

1865— İncil-i Şerif ile Tefsiri. İstanbul: Erzincanlı Artin Minasyan ve Şirketi Matbaası.

1866 – Kitab ül-Ahd el-cedîd el-mensub ila Rabbina İsa el-Mesih. Translated by Schauffler
and Selim Efendi. İstanbul: Hariton Matasyan Matbaası,

1868 – Mezamir-i Davud. Translated by Schauffler. Istanbul: Minasiyan (=Hariton

Matasyan?) Matbaası.

1869 – Kitab-ı Mukaddes. Edited by Elias Riggs. Printed in Istanbul.

1870 — Aht ē Chētit, eani : Inchil i Shērif lisaně asli i eunanitēn pit’ t’ērchiwmē (Ahd-i Cedid,
yani: İncil-i Şerif – lisan-ı aslı Yunaniden bir tercüme). Istanpolta: A.H. Poyachean
(Boyacıyan), 1875.

1872 — Sifr-ü Tekvin el-Mahlûkât — Bereshit. Miciçde tab olunmuş fi sene 1872 el-
mesihiyye.

1873 — Ravi Sadık yani Kütüb-i Ahd ül-atik ve Ahd ül-cedîdin havi olduğu hikâyâtın
mecmuasıdır (Tevrat ve İncilden seçmeler). Istanbul: Papasyan Artin Matbaası.

1874 – Gospels and Acts. Revised from Schauffler and Selim’s version of 1862. Printed in
Istanbul by the Bible Societies.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 114
1875 – Ahd-i cedid, yani İncil-i Şerif : Lisan-ı aslı Yunaninden bir tercümedir. Istanbul:
Boyaciyan Agop Matbaası.

1876 – Mezamir: Lisan-ı asli İbraniden bi-t-tercüme. Boyacıyan Agop Matbaası, İstanbul,
İngiliz ve Amerikan Bibl Şirketleri. 187 pages.

1876 – İşaya peygambere nazil olan vahyidir. Translated by Schauffler. Vienna: Adolf
Holshaus.

1877 – Tevrat, yani, Musa peygambere vahyi tarikile nazil olan şeriat ül-lâhik kitabıdır.
Translated by Schauffler. Vienna: Adolf Holshaus.

1877 – Gospel of Matthew. Apparently a revision of Matthew in the New Testament of 1875.

1878 – Ahd-i Cedid yani İncil-i Şerif : Matta ve Markos ve Luka ve Yuhanna ve Amâl-i
Rüsûl (The Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles). Der Saadet [İstanbul]: Boyacıyan
Agop Matbaasında tab olunmuştur.

1878 – Kitab-ı Mukaddes, yani Ahd-i Atik ve Ahd-i Cedid: ‘An asl muharrer bulundugg u
İbrani ve Keldani ve Yunani lisanlarından bir tercüme. Der Saadet (=İstanbul): Boyacıyan Agop
Matbaası.

1878 — Kitab-ı Mukaddes (Armeno-Turkish). Printed concurrently with the Ottoman

Turkish version.

1884 – Kitab-ı Mukaddes. Revised by Elias Riggs with Alexander Thompson, George
Kazakos and Avedis Assadourian.

1885-86 — Kitab-ı Mukaddes : yani, Ahd-i Atik ve Ahd-i Cedid. İstanbul: Boyacıyan Agop
Matbaası.

1888 — Kitab-ı Mukaddes. The Armeno-Turkish reflects the 1885-86 revision of the Ottoman
Turkish Bible.

1899 — Ahd-i Cedid yani Nea Diathēkē: ‘An asıl muharrir bulunduğu Yunani lisanından bi’t-
terjeme. Ingilterrede ve memalik-i sairede mukaddes kitapların neşri için teşkil edilen şirketin
mesarifiyle. Istanbolda: A.H. Boyacian Matbaasında tap olunmuş tur.

1901 – Kitab-ı Mukaddes : yani, Ahd-i Atik ve Ahd-i Cedid. İstanbul: Boyacıyan Agop
Matbaası. The New Testament was reprinted in 1908 and 1911.

1926 — Armeno-Turkish Reference Bible. Vienna: Christoph Reisser’s Sons.

AFTER THE TURKISH LANGUAGE REFORM (1927)

1927/28 — Proverbs in a di-script version, Arabic and Roman characters.

1928 — Psalms. Translated by Fred Field Goodsell and an unnamed Turkish poet.

1930 — İncil Mattaya göre: Eski Yunanca aslına tatbik olunarak Türkçesi tashih edilmiştir.
İstanbul: İngiliz ve Ecnebi Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi ve Amerikan Kitabı Mukaddes

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 115
Şirketi. Followed by the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, printed separately, 1930-1931.
Translated by C.F. Gates, Goodsell and Frederick W. MacCallum.

1932 — Mezmurlar: Eski İbranice aslına tatbik olunarak Türkçesi tashih edilmistir, by Gates,
Goodsell and MacCallum. İstanbul: İngiliz ve Ecnebi Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi ve
Amerikan Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.

1933 — Mukaddes Kitabın İkinci Kısmı : Yeni Ahit. İncil ve Diğer Kitaplar. Eski Yunanca
aslına göre Türkçesi yeniden tashih edilmiştir. Neşresedenler Amerikan Kitabımukaddes
Şirketi ve İngiliz ve Ecnebi Kitabımukaddes Şirketi, İstanbul. Translators included J.K.
Birge, C.F. Gates, F.W. MacCallum, E.T. Perry, and Charles T. Riggs.

1936 — Matthew. Revised in simplified style. Also in the late 1930’s, Psalms, Proverbs, Job,
and Genesis were printed separately.

1941 — Kitabı Mukaddes, Eski ve Yeni Ahit (Tevrat ve İncil) : İbrani, Kildani ve Yunani
dillerinden son tashih edilmiş tercümedir. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi. Edited and
prepared for press by Frederick W. MacCallum and “a Turkish savant”.

1957 — İşte Adam : İncilden Seçmeler. Hazırlıyan E.C. Blake. İstanbul: Amerikan Bord
Nesriyat Dairesi.

1958 – Mezmurlar: Aslına göre son tashih edilmiş tercümedir. Üçüncü basış. İstanbul: Kitabı
Mukaddes Şirketi.

1959 — İncili Şerif: yahut İsa Mesihin Yeni Ahit Kitabı.. Translated by Jean Wendel. Padua:
Apud Basilicam S. Antonii.

1972 — İncil Markos: Aslından cc agg das Tuu rkcc e'ye yapılan yeni tercuu me. Translated by Jean
Wendel, Vedat Örs and others. II stanbul : Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi. 50 pp.

1974 — Markos İncili: Aslından cc agg dass Türkcc e'ye yapılan yeni tashih. Translated by Vedat
Örs. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.

1978 — Su, Ekmek, Yaşam (Gospel of John). Translated by Thomas Cosmades.

1978— Hz. İsa’nın Öğretişleri and Hz. İsa’nın Mucizeleri. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.
Translated by Nevzat Baban.

1987 — Kitabı Mukaddes’in Deuterokanonik (Apokrif) Kitapları. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes

Şirketi.

1987 — Müjde: İncil'in çağdaş Türkçe çevirisi. Translated by Ali Şimşek et al. İstanbul: Yeni
Yaşam Yayınları and The Translation Trust.

1988 – İncil: Sevinç Getirici Haber: İncil’in Yunanca’dan çağdaş Türkçe’ye çevirisi. Translated by
Thomas Cosmades. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.

1988 — Zebur -Mezmurlar. Istanbul: Ohan Basımevi.

1990 — Rut. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi..

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 116
1991 — Bir Hekimin Kaleminden: Luka ve Elçilerin İşleri / A Doctor's Story: Luke and Acts.
İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayıları.

1991 — Çocuklar İçin Kutsal Kitap (The Bible for Children). Copenhagen: Scandinavian
Publishing House. Printed in Poland.

1992 — Yeşu (Joshua). İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları.

1992 — Müjde. Transliterated into Bulgarian Cyrillic characters. WEC Press, U.K.

1993 — İncil’in Matta Bölümü. İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları. 2. Basım. ISBN: 975-7509-08-
6.

1994 — Müjde.: İncil'in çağdaş Türkçe çevirisi Revised version. İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam
Yayınları.

1994 — Göksel Söz: İncil’den Yuhanna bölümünün çağdaş Türkçeye yeni çevirisi.
Mecdiyeköy/İstanbul: Kutsal Kitap Araştırma Merkezi. Translated in the late 1970’s by
Nevzat Baban.

1995 — Zebur – Mezmurlar, trans. Dr. Jur. Hakkı Demirel. İstanbul: Müjde Yayıncılık Şirketi
(ISBN 975 7889 21 0).

1996 — Tevrat, trans. Dr. Jur. Hakkı Demirel, 2. baskı, İstanbul: Müjde Yayıncılık Şirketi
(ISBN 975 7889 16 4).

1996 — Yaratılış: İbranice Özgün Metinden Yapılmış Yeni Çeviri (Tekvin). — Zebur
(Mezmurlar): İbranice özgün metinden yapılmış yeni çeviri. — Süleymanın Özdeyişleri
(3 booklets). İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi ve Yeni Yaşam Yayınları.

1996— Mezmurlar (Zebur). Downloadable in either Turkish or Bulgarian Cyrillic characters.

1996 — Gideons’ New Testament in Turkish (Müjde) and English (NKJV). Yeni Yaşam
Yayınları. Reprinted in 2000.

1996 — Mezmurlar (Zebur). Downloadable in both Turkish and Bulgarian Cyrillic characters.

1998 — İncil (Sevindirici Haber): İncil’in Yunanca aslından çağdaş Türkçe’ye çevirisi.
İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi and the United Bible Societies.

1999 — İncil: New Testament Türkçe/İngilizce Turkish/English. Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.

2nd edition, 2004. New International Version in parallel columns with the Kitabı
Mukaddes.

2001 — Kutsal Kitap: Eski ve Yeni Antlaşma (Tevrat, Zebur, İncil). İstanbul: Kitabı
Mukaddes Şirketi in cooperation with Yeni Yaşam Yayınları.

2001 — İncil – Müjde: İncil’in çağdaş Türkçe çevirisi. İstanbul: Zirve Yayıncılık ve Dağıtım
and Yeni Yaşam Yayınları / The Translation Trust. 5th printing, 2005.

2002 — İncil / Das Neue Testament: Hoffnung für Alle. Türkçe/Almanca Türkisch/Deutsch.
International Bible Society and Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 117
2003 — Kutsal İncil. Translated by Bünyamin Candemir. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.

2003 — Kutsal Kitap ve Deuterokanonik (Apokrif) Kitaplar. İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes

Şirketi.

2003 — Gizlenen Kitaplar (Apokrifler): Kutsal Kitap’tan Dışlanan Saklı Kutsal Öyküler.
Translated by Kadir Akın, edited by Hakkı Bayraktar. İstanbul: Haktan Yayıncılık No. 3,
Hakîkat Yayınları No. 1.

2004 — Indjil: Yeni Ahit, Yeni Antlaşma: Bulgaristan Türkçesi. Plovdiv: Sevda OOD.

2004 — Tehlim (The Jewish Psalms). İstanbul: Kitabı Mukaddes Şirketi.

2005 — Kutsal İncil: Pazar ve Bayram Günlerinde İncil’den Okunan Bölümler. In Syriac
with Turkish translation by Abune (Father) Hanna Aykurt. Beyoğlu, İstanbul: Süryani
Kadim Ortodoks Patrik Vekilliği.

2005 — Kutsal Kitap: Yeni Dünya Çevirisi. The New Testament was also published in 2005
as Kutsal Metinler – İncil. By the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

2006-2010 — Tora Bereşit 1, Tora Şemot 2, Tora Vayikra 3, Tora ve Aftara 4, Tora ve
Aftara/Devarim — Tevrat Tefsiri. 5 volumes. Gözlem Gazetecilik Basın ve Yayın A.Ş.

2007 — Ali Bey’in Osmanlıca (1662-1666) Çevirisine Göre ‘Ekümenik’ Kutsal Kitap: Tevrat-
Zebur-İnciller Ve Tüm Deuterokanonik / Apokrif Ekleri. Translated by Kadir Akın and Hakkı
Bayraktar. İstanbul: Haktan Yayıncılık.

2008 — Das Neue Testament Deutsch-Türkisch İncil Yeni Antlaşma Almanca-Türkçe.

Dillenburg: Christliche Verlagsgesellschaft. German Elberfelder version of 2006 with the
revised Müjde of 1994.

2009 — Kutsal Kitap: Eski ve Yeni Antlaşma (Tevrat, Zebur, İncil). İstanbul: Kitabı
Mukaddes Şirketi ve Yeni Yaşam Yayınları. A minor revision of the 2001 version.

2010 — Açıklamalı Kutsal Kitap. İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları and The Translation Trust.

2010 — Yeni Yaşam Açıklamalı Kutsal Kitap. Springfield, Missouri, USA: Life Publishers
International. Printed in South Korea. Imported to Turkey by Yeni Yaşam Yayınları.

2010 — İncil: Sevinç Getirici Haber: İncil’in Yunanca’dan çağdaş Türkçe’ye çevirisi. Siegen:
Mission für Süd-Ost-Europa. A revision by Thomas Cosmades of his first edition of
1988.

2010 — Başlangıçta Kelâm Vardı: İncil’in Yuhanna Bölümü — Yuhanna: Kolay Anlaşılır
İncil. İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam Yayınları.

2010 — Süleyman’ın Meselleri (Proverbs). Türk Standart Versiyonu, by İlhan Keskinöz.

2011 — İncil-i Şerif'in Yüce Anlamı - Havari Matta'nın Kaleminden - Orijinal Metin ve
Kelime Kelime Türkçe Çevirisi ile birlikte. İstanbul: Sabeel Media.

2011 — OsmanlicaKelam.net. A website of Ottoman Turkish Bibles with transcription and

explanatory notes.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 118
2012 — Halk Dilinde İncil: Sadeleştirilmiş İncil Tercümesi (HADİ). İstanbul: Yeni Yaşam
Yayınları.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 119
APPENDIX II: THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE TURKISH VERSIONS
Edited from the original sources and a list by F. Lyman MacCallum, “Kitab-ı Mukaddes’in

Türkçe Tercümesine Dair,” Tercüme 3 (13): 59-68 (1942).

I. Draft Manuscript by Ali Bey (1662-64), adapted from the transcription by Funda Toprak:
İmdi böyle namâz kılıp deyiŋ
Ey göklerde olan babamız
ismiŋ* mukaddes olsun
melekûtuŋ gelsin
muradıŋ nice gökde ise yerde dahi böyle olsun
her günki etmeḡimizi** bize bugün ver
ve bize suçlarımızı bağışla, nice ki biz dahi bize suçlu olanlara bağışlarız
ve bizi iğvaya*** salma illâ bizi habisden*** kurtar
çün mülk*** ve kuvvet ve izzet*** seniŋdir. Amin.
*Sağır nef represented by /ŋ / with a tail was pronounced like English ng as in Anataolian dialects
today. **Ekmek spelled etmek in Old Turkic was still common in the 19th c. *** By the time the 1827
version was printed these words had been edited as follows: imtihan for iğva, şerrir for habis,
melekût for mülk, and ebeden after izzet.

II. Armeno-Turkish İncil 1819 (Turkish in Armenian characters, St. Petersburg), translated
by Seraphim Khojentzi. These Armeno-Turkish versions were printed in MacCallum (1942).
Atamız ki semadasın,
kaddis olsun ismin senin,
gelsin senin melekûtun,
meşiyetin olsun senin, nice ki semavatta ve arzda.
Yevmeye etmeğimizi ver bize bugün.
Ve hafv eyle bize deynimizi, nice ki biz hafv ederiz bize medyun olarlere.
Ve eletme bizi tecrübeye, amma halâs eyele bizi şerirden,
Zira senindir melekût ve kuvvet ve mecdu müebbet. Amin.

III. Armeno-Turkish Bible 1863 (Turkish in Armenian characters, Istanbul), translated by

William Goodell and Panayotes Constantinides

Ya göklerde olan Pederimiz,

ismin mukaddes olsun,
Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/
Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 120
padişahlığın gelsin,
iradetin gökteki gibi yer üzerinde dahi olsun.
Her günkü ekmeğimizi bize bugün ver.
Ve bize borçlarımızı bağışla, nice ki biz dahi borçlularımızı bağışlarız.
Ve bizi imtihana getirme, illa bizi yaramazdan kurtar,
zira padişahlık ve kudret ve hamt ebed-ül abat senindir. Amin.

IV. Kitab ul-’ahd el-jedid el-mensub ‘ila Rabbinā İsa ‘el-Mesîḥ (The New Testament of
Our Lord Jesus Christ), 1866, translated by William Schauffler and Selim Efendi a.k.a.
Rev. Edward Williams. Transcription by Nur Hanım of Moda Kilisesi, Istanbul.

Ey semavatta olan Pederimiz,

senin ismiŋ mukaddes olsun.
Seniŋ melekûtuŋ gelsin
Semada nice ise yer üzerinde de seniŋ iraden icra olunsun.
Rızkımızı bize bugün ver.
Ve bize suçlu olanları bağışladığımız gibi bizim suçlarımızı bağışla.
Ve bizi iğvaya idhal etme ama bizi şerirden kurtar,
zira melekût ve hükümet ve izzet ebed-ül abat seniŋdir. Amin

V. Kitabı Mukaddes 1885 (Osmanlıca, Arabic characters), translated by George Herrick, R.H.
Weakley, Keyfi Efendi et al.

Ey semavatta olan Pederimiz,

ismiŋ mukaddes olsun,
melekûtuŋ gelsin,
iradetin semavatta* olduğu gibi yer üzerinde dahi icra olunsun.
Yevme etmeğimizi bize bugün ver.
Ve bize suçlu olanlara bağışladımız misilli bizim suçlarımızı bağışla.
Ve bizi iğvaya getirme, lakin bizi şerirden kurtar,
zira melekût ve kudret ve izzet ilelebet seniŋdir. Amin.
* changed to semada in the İncil-i Şerif, 1911

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 121
VI. Ahd-i Cedid yani Nea Diathēkē 1899 (Karamanlıca, Turkish in Greek characters),
translated by Elias Riggs, George Kazakis, Avedis Assadourian et al.
Ey göklerde olan Pederimiz,
ismin mukaddes olsun
padişahlıgın gelsin,
iradetin göklerde olduğu gibi, yer üzerinde dahi icra olunsun.
Her günki ekmeğimizi bize bu gün ver.
Ve bize suçlu olanlara bagışladıgımız gibi, bizim suçlarımızı bagışla.
Ve bizi iğvaya getirme, lakin bizi yaramazdan kurtar,
zira padişahlık ve kudret ve izzet ebed ül-ebd senin dir. Amin.

VII. Kitabı Mukaddes 1941 (Latin characters), translated by Frederick W. MacCallum, “Bay
Cami,“ et al.

Ey göklerde olan Babamız,

ismin mukaddes olsun;
melekûtun gelsin;
gökte olduğu gibi yerde de senin iraden olsun.
Gündelik ekmeğimizi bize bugün ver.
Ve bize borçlu olanlara bağışladığımız gibi, bizim borçlarımızı bize bağışla.
Ve bizi iğvaya götürme, fakat bizi şerirden kurtar,
Çünkü* melekût ve kudret ve izzet ebedlere kadar** senindir. Amin.
In the İncil of 1933 these Osmanlıca words had been used: *zira, **ilelebet.

VIII. İncil: Sevinç Getirici Haber 1988, rev. 2010, translated by Thomas Cosmades.

Göklerdeki Babamız!
Adın kutsansın.
Hükümranlığın gelsin.
Gökte olduğu gibi, yerde de isteğin uygulansın.
Gündelik ekmeğimizi bize bugün ver
Ve bize karşı suç işleyenlerin suçunu bağışladığımız gibi
sen de bizleri bağışla.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 122
Günahla sınanmamıza olanak bırakma. Bizleri kötüden kurtar.
Çünkü hükümranlık da, güçlülük de, yücelik de çağlar boyu senindir. Amin.

IX. Kutsal Kitap 2001, from Müjde 1987, by Ali Şimşek et al.

Göklerdeki Babamız,
adın kutsal kılınsın.
Egemenliğin gelsin.
Gökte olduğu gibi, yer yüzünde de Senin istediğin olsun.
Bugün bize gündelik ekmeğimizi ver.
Bize karşı suç işleyenleri bağışladığımız gibi,
Sen de bizim suçlarımızı bağışla.
Ayartılmamıza izin verme. Bizi kötü olandan kurtar.
Çünkü egemenlik, güç ve yücelik sonsuzlara dek senindir! Amin.

Supplement: Codex Cumanicus, 1303 (Latin characters), trans. by Franciscan friars in

Crimea.
This is Kipchak (Kıpçak, Qıpchaq) Turkish, not the Western or Oğuz Turkish of the Selçuk, Osmanlı and
modern Turks. Vowels have been supplied where they are missing in the original.

Atamız kim* kökte sen,

algıslı bolsun seniŋ atıŋ,
gelsin hanlıgıŋ,
bolsun seniŋ tilemegiŋ* necik kim* kökte, alay* yerde
kündegi etmek*imizni bizge bugün bergil*
da ki yazıklarımıznı bizge bosatgıl
necik kim* biz bosatırbız bizge yaman etkenlerge
da ki yeknin* sınamagına kurmagıl,
bizni barca* yamandan kutkalgıl. Amin.

* kim = ki — tilemegiŋ = dilemeğin > dileğin— necik kim = nice ki — alay = olay > öyle — etmek =
ekmek — bergil = vere kıl — yeknin = yeğin (?) > aşırı — bar(ca) = tüm. Note that -ni is the accusative
and –ge is the dative ending in the Kıpçak languages.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 123
APPENDIX III (a): 1 SAMUEL 2:1-10 in HAKİ and ALİ BEY
This is the Song of Hannah in Haki’s manuscript of 1659 (or 1661) compared with Ali Bey’s

finished translation of 1665. Ali Bey has used Haki’s wording in some places but he shows a

better sense of Turkish syntax and rhythm, and his vocabulary is more fluent. I have

adjusted Neudecker’s transliteration of Haki to conform the vowel system to Modern

Turkish, as in the transcription tables shown on OsmanlicaKelam.net.

Haki, 1659 (adapted from Neudecker 1994) Ali Bey, 1665 (from OsmanlicaKelam.net)
2:1b - Sevindi yüreğim Hakk Teâlâ ile 2:1b Benim kalbim Allah Teâlâ ile mesrur dur
boynuzum yücelendi Hakk Teâlâ ile Allah Teâlâ ile boynuzum yücelendi
ağzım eŋlendi düşmanlarım üzerinde benim ağzım düşmanlarım üzerine bollandı
zira seniŋ halâsıŋ ile sevindim çün seniŋ halâsıŋ ile sevindim
2:2 Hakk Teâlâ gibi kuddüs yokdur 2 Allah Teâlâ gibi kuddus yokdur zîrâ senden ġayrı yok
zira senden ġayri yokdur ve Taŋrımız kadar kavî yokdur
ve Tanŋrımız gibi yey yokdur
2:3 çokluk söylemeŋ 3 çokluk pek yücelenip soylemeŋ
yüce yüce çıkmasın pek ağzıŋızdan ağzıŋızdan tekebbürlük çıkmasın
zira ilimler Tanŋrısı Hakk Teâlâ dır zîrâ ʿilimleriŋ Taŋrısı Allah Teâlâdır
ve oŋa işler yakaşır ve işler oŋa yakışır
2:4 cebbarlarıŋ yayları kırılmış ve sırıldı 4 cebbârlarıŋ yayları kırıldı ve üftâdeler kuvvetle
kuvvet kuşaklandılar kuşandılar
2:5 toklular *etmeğe kiralandılar (*ekmek)
5 toklar etmege kirâlandılar ve aç olanlar ferâğat
ve aç olanlar men oldular
etdiler şoyle ki âkıre olan yedi doğurdu ve oğulları çok
ta akire olan çok doğurdu olan zabunlandı
ve oğulları çok olunan kırıldı
2:6 Hakk öldürücü ve dirldici 6 oldüren ve dirilden
mezara indiren ve çıkaran mezâra indiren ve çıkaran Allahdır
2:7 Hakk Teâlâ fakir edici ve ġani edici 7 fakîr ve ġanîyi eden
indiren ve kaldıran ednâyı ve alâyı eden Allahdır
2:8 toprakdan kaldıran 8 fakîri tozdan kaldıran
fakiri kenifden kaldıran ve dervîşi necisden çıkaran
dilenciyi ġanilerle oturtmak için sultânlar ile oturtmak için
ve izzet eskemniyi (?) miras eder onlara ve onlara ʿizzet kürsîsini nâsib etmek için
zira Hakk Teâlâ yeriŋ direkleri zîrâ yerin direkleri Allahıŋdır
ve temel etdi üzerlerine dünyanın ve onlarıŋ üzerine dünyâyı dayandırdı
2:9 iyileriŋ ayaklarını saklar 9 mukaddesleriniŋ ayaklarını saklar
ve kemler karaŋlıkda kırılır ve yaramazlar zulmetde helâk olurlar
zira kuvvet adam büyümez zîrâ âdam kendi kuvvetiyle büyümez
2:10 Hakk Teâlânıŋ çekişenleri kırılsın 10 Allah ile çekişenler kırılsın
üzerlerine gökden gürüldür üzerlerine goklerden gürüldeyecekdir
Hakk Teâlâ hükm eder yeriŋ kenarlarını Allah Teâlâ yeriŋ kenârlarına hükm edecekdir
ve padşahına kuvvet verir ve kendi pâdişâhına kuvvet verip kendi mesîhiniŋ
ve mesihiŋ boynuzu kaldırır boynuzunu büyüdecekdir

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 124
APPENDIX III (b): GENESIS 1-2
in ALİ BEY and KIEFFER
This comparison shows that Kieffer
corrected Ali Bey’s translations of the divine
names but otherwise did not edit his
language except in small details. Henderson
displayed a similar comparison (1825, pp
92f.) in his critique of the 1819 Ottoman
Turkish New Testament.

Shroeder, Quatuor, 1739 (Ali Bey’s original) Kieffer, Ahd-i Atik, 1827 (editing Ali Bey)
Tevrat-ı Mûsâ aleyhi es-selam Sifr-ü Tekvin el-Mahlukat
1:1 İbtidada Bârî Teâlâ gökleri ve yeri 1:1 İbtidada Allah gökleri ve yeri
yaratmışdır yaratmışdır
1:2 yer tahî ve hâlî idi 1:2 ve yer tahî ve hâlî idi
lücceniŋ dahi üstü yanında karaŋlık idi lücceniŋ dahi üzerinde karaŋlık idi
sularıŋ üstü yanında Taŋrınıŋ Ruhu deprenir ve sularıŋ üzerinde Allahıŋ Ruhu deprenir idi
idi
1:3 bu kez Allah Teâlâ aydınlık olsun dedi de 1:3 ve Allah aydınlık olsun dedi ve aydınlık oldu
aydınlık oldu
1:4 hem Cenâb Bârî aydınlığıŋ güzel olduğunu 1:4 hem Allah aydınlıġıŋ güzel olduğunu gördü
gördü de ve
Cenâb Bârî aydınlığı karaŋlıklardan ayırdı Allah aydınlığı karaŋlıklardan ayırdı
1:5 ve Cenâb Bârî aydınlığı gündüz ve karaŋlığı 1:5 ve Allah aydınlığını gün ve karaŋlığını gece
gece tesmiye eyledi tesmiye eyledi
ve ahşam ve sabah olunca evvelki gün oldu ve ahşam ve sabah olunca evvelki gün oldu
1:6 ve dahi Cenâb Bârî dedi ki 1:6 ve dahi Allah dedi ki
sularıŋ ortasında bir raki’ olsun ki suları sularıŋ ortasında bir raki’ olsun ki suları
sulardan ayıra sulardan ayıra
1:7 pes Taŋrı Teâlâ bir raki’i yapdı ve raki’niŋ 1:7 pes Allah raki’i yapdı ve raki’iŋ altında olan
altında olan suları raki’niŋ üstünde olan suları raki’iŋ üstunde olan sulardan ayırdı ve
sulardan ayırdı ve böyle oldu..... böyle oldu.....

2:4 gökleriŋ ve yeriŋ halk oldukları zaman asılları 2:4 gökleriŋ ve yeriŋ halk oldukları zaman asılları
bu idi bu idi
Taŋrı Teâlâ yeri ve kökü yaratığı günde Rabb Allah yeri ve gökleri yaratdığı günde
2:5 ve henüz yerde olmayan sahranıŋ cümle 2:5 ve henüz yerde olmayan sahranıŋ cümle
fidanlarını hem bitmezden evvel tarlanıŋ cemi’ fidanlarını hem bitmezden evvel tarlanıŋ cemi’
otunu otunu
(zira Taŋrı Allah Teâlâ yer üzerine yağmur (zira Rabb Allah dahi yer üzerine yağmur
yağdırmadı) yağdırmadı)
ve yeri nats etmek için adam yok idi ve yeri nats etmek için adam yok idi
2:6 bu kez yerden buhar çıkıb cümle rüviy zemini 2:6 ve yerden buhar çıkıp cümle rüviy zemini
sularıp... sularırdı...

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 125
APPENDIX III (c): MATTHEW 22:31-46 in ALİ BEY and KIEFFER
This comparison shows that Kieffer made more adjustments to Ali Bey’s vocabulary in the

NT than in the OT example above, but only minor adjustments of his style. I have adjusted

Toprak’s transliteration of Ali Bey’s draft manuscrıpt to conform the vowel system to

Modern Turkish, as in my transcription from Kieffer’s Bible.

Ali Bey, 1664 (transcr. Funda Toprak, 2006)

22:31 ve öluleriŋ ikametiniŋ hususunda Allah Ali Bey, as edited by Kieffer, 1827
Teâlânıŋ size dedigini okumadıŋız mı ki Allah
Teâlânıŋ öluleriŋ ilâhı degildir illâ dirileriŋdir 22:31 ve öluleriŋ kıyameti hususunda Allahıŋ size
32 ben İbrahimiŋ ilâhı ve İshakıŋ ilâhı ve Yakubuŋ dedigini okumadıŋız mı cun dedi ki
ilâhıyım
Allah Teâlâ öluleriŋ ilâhı degildir illâ dirileriŋdir
32 ben İbrahimiŋ Allahı ve İshakıŋ Allahı ve
33 cemi’etler dahi bunu işidip onuŋ ta’limine Yakubuŋ Allahı ʾım
ta’accub etdiler Allah öluleriŋ Allahı degildir amma dirileriŋdir
34 ve feriziler işidip ki zındiklarıŋ agızını kapadı
33 cem’iyyetler dahi bunu işitmekle onuŋ ta’limine
bile cem’ oldular ta’accub etdiler
35 ondan fuhakadan birisi oŋa şu suʾal etdi ve 34 ve ferisiler işidip ki sadıkileriŋ agızını kapadı
imtihan edip dedi ki bile cem’ oldular
36 ey mu’allim Tevratıŋ eŋ buyuk emri kangisidir 35 ve onlardan biri ki bir fakih idi
oŋa suʾal edip ve imtihan edip dedi ki
37 Hazreti ‘İsa oŋa dedi ki 36 ey mu’allim şeri’atıŋ eŋ buyuk vasiyeti
Rabbiŋ Allah Teâlâ butun kalbiŋden ve butun kangisidir
canıŋdan ve butun fikriŋden sev 37 ve ‘İsa oŋa dedi ki
38 evvelki hem buyuk emir bu dur Rabb Allahıŋı butun kalbiŋden ve butun canıŋdan
39 ikinci budur buŋa manend ve butun fikriŋden sevesin
kendi karibiŋi kendiŋi gibi sev 38 evvelki ve buyuk vasiyyet bu dur
40 ve bu iki emirlerde cem’i şeri’atler ve 39 ve buŋa beŋzeyen bu dur
peygamberler mundericdir seniŋ koŋsuŋu kendiŋ gibi sevesin
41 ve feriziler muctemi’ iken Hazreti ‘İsa onlara 40 bu iki vasiyyetlerde butun şeri’at ve
suʾal edip 42 dedi ki peygamberler mundericdir
mesih icin ne sanırsıŋız kimiŋ oglu dur 41 ve ferisiler muctemi’ iken ‘İsa onlara su’al edip
onlar dahi oŋa Davuduŋ dur derler 42dedi ki
43 ve onlara dedi ki mesih icin ne sanırsıŋız kimiŋ oglu dur
pes Davud oŋa ruhda niçin rabb diye ad koyup dedi onlar dahi oŋa dediler ki Davuduŋ dur
ki 43 ve onlara dedi ki
44 Rabb Rabbime dedi ki ta ben dusmanlarıŋı öyle olsa Davud oŋa ruhda niçin rabb der
ayaklarıŋa basamak koyuncaya dek benim sagımda çun dedi ki
otur 44 Rabb Rabbime dedi ki ta ben dusmanlarıŋı
45 pes çün Davud oŋa rabb der onuŋ oglu nice ola ayaklarıŋa basamak koyuncaya dek benim sagımda
bilir otur
46 ve kimse oŋa cevap veremedi hem ol gunden 45 imdi eger Davud oŋa rabb derse nicin onuŋ oglu
soŋra artık oŋa kimse suʾal etmege cür’et etmedi ola bilir
46 ve kimse oŋa cevap veremedi ve ol gunden soŋra
artık oŋa kimse su’al etmege cera’at etmedi

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 126
APPENDIX IV: THE LIFE OF WOJCIECH BOBOWSKI (ALİ BEY)

The best biographical information about Ali Bey comes from his own writings and from

several items datable to the period 1666-68 in the Thomas Smith Collection, Bodleian

Library, Oxford.275 The collection contains a letter from Ali Bey asking for employment in

England, written in Latin and in his own hand, as well as supprting testmonials written by

his English friends. Before Neudecker’s study of the Thomas Smith papers, Ali Bey’s

biography had been based largely on a promotional introduction to one of his works by

Thomas Hyde, written in 1690.276 The French encyclopedia Biographie Universelle (1811)

included a biography of “Ali-Bey ou Ali Beigh,” 277 essentially repeating Hyde’s story, as did

subsequent accounts. Ali Bey is mentioned a few times in the Ottoman imperial archives (see

Elçin’s note on Hezârfen Hüseyin below).278 We also have comments about him in the travel

diaries of his European friends.279

Though Wojciech Bobowski’s birth date is unknown, the date of his capture by the Tatars is

reported to have occurred about 35 years before the composition of one of the papers in the

Thomas Smith Collection. This seems to mean he was captured in Crimean Tatar raids along

the Bug and Poltava Rivers in 1632, or during the Polish-Ottoman War of 1633-34 that

followed.280 Bobowski himself tells us that Lwów (Lvív in Ukrainian, Lemberg in German)

was the city of his birth. It lay near the border between the Polish-Lithuanian

275
Bodleian Library, Oxford, Thomas Smith Collection, mss. No. 98 and 104; Neudecker (2005); Neudecker
(1996), p. 169.

276
Hyde, op.cit.

277
Biographie Universelle, Ancienne et Moderne (Paris: Chez Michaud Frères, 1811), Tome Premier (AA-AL), p.
574 ; cited in Lee (1824), p. 4-5n. URL : http://books.google.com/books?id=X1QJAQAAIAAJ&ots=nYQ99L0-
19&dq=%22biographie%20universelle%22%201811&pg=RA2-PA574#v=onepage&q=Ali%20Bey&f=false.

278
Elçin (1976), p. v.

279
Articles cited here by Behar, Elçin, Malcolm and Neudecker provide details of these sources. Behar (1990), p.
22f. shows a list of Ali Bey’s European friends.

280
Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Ottoman_War_%281633%E2%80%931634%29. In the
early 17th century a surrogate war occurred between Cossacks who were nominally subject to the Polish-
Lithuanian Commonwealth and Tatars subject to the Ottoman Sultan. Generally the Tatars were the stronger
party, but the outskirts of Istanbul were attacked by Cossacks in 1615 and again in 1625; cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporozhian_Cossacks. There were also Tatar raids into Polish territory in 1624
and 1644: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Poland. The raiders of the early 1630s were
Tatars of the Budjak horde.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 127
Commonwealth and the Tatar lands to the north of the Black Sea. If he was born in 1610 (the

traditional though undocumented date), he would have been a young man in his twenties

when he was taken prisoner. Neudecker offers an alternative timeline, accepting that he was

a boy of 10 years old when he was captured in 1632, 281 which would require that his

birthdate be moved forward to the early 1620s.

It is hard to accept the contemporaneous account by Ali Bey’s friend, Clæs Ralamb, that he

was captured during the Venetian War, 282 presumably the one fought in the Adriatic Sea in

1537-40. This conflicts with the statement in one of the documents in the Thomas Smith

papers that he was captured “by an incursion of the Tataress into Poland.” Since the writers

of both the Tatar and the Venetian versions of the story were acquaintances of Ali Bey, it is

unclear why their stories would conflict.

Ali Bey’s skill in languages and his knowledge of Western musical staff notation suggest that

he had had a good education in Lwów. These facts also justify the conclusion that he was

probably captured not as a small boy but as teenager or young man.

Polish historians believe that Bobowski was from a noble Polish family, based on a statement

to this effect by Hyde and the fact that Bobow was a minor Polish county during this

period.283 If Bobowski was a count or a member of a noble family it must be asked why he

was not ransomed and why he never mentioned his noble lineage in any of his writings.

Ali Bey “served for many years in the Imperial household as a musician and trainee page,

but was (according to one early writer, Cornelio Magni) eventually expelled for

drunkenness.”284 Indeed, there is internal evidence in Ali Bey’s writings that he enjoyed his

wine. When he finished his draft of the Bible in December 1664 he wrote a note to Warner in

which he expresses hope of eternal reward for his work and that Warner will now treat him

to a good stiff drink (bonum potum). In his musical pieces he celebrates wine in the way the
281
Neudecker (2005), p. 175f.

282
Clæs Ralamb, Diarium under resa till Konstantinopel, 1657-1658, ed. Christian Callmer (Stockholm, 1963).

Hyde, op.cit.; Franz Babinger, “Wojciech Bobowski,” Polski Slownik Biograficzny 2: 156–57 (Cracow, 1936); F.
283

Siarczyński, “Wiadomość o Woyciechu Jaxie z Bobowej… “ Czasopisma Naukowego Księgozbioru Ossolińskich,

1 / 1, (Lwów, 1828 ). Neudecker (1996), p. 170, accepts this view, citing Schoeder’s introduction of 1739; cf.
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojciech_Bobowski.

284
Malcom (2007a), p. 331, n. 11; cf. Elçin (1976), p. vi. Both Malcolm and Elçin cite Quanto di più curioso, e
vago ha potuto raccorre Cornelio Magni nel primo biennio da esso consumato in viaggi, e dimore per la Turchia
(Parma, 1679), pp. 500-502.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 128
Sufis sometimes did, including one piece entitled “Canticle to Bacchus,” the Roman god of

wine.285

Ali Bey’s term of service as a slave in the Topkapı Palace has been set variously at 19, 21, or

“around 20” years,286 or, more to the point, “almost three prentiships,”287 which means

almost three terms of seven years (see Appendix V on slavery and manumission in the

Ottoman tradition). At this point he seems to have entered the service of a Turkish officer

whom he accompanied to Egypt. When he returned to Istanbul (at least by 1657) he was

freed from servitude, presumably by this Turkish officer.

Before his time in Egypt and while he was still a slave, he had been introduced to the

English community in Constantinople by Isaac Basire, who was chaplain to the English

ambassador during the 1650s. Basire had hired him to translate the Anglican catechism in

1653. In his letter in the Thomas Smith papers, Ali Bey thanks Basire for introducing him to

Sir Thomas Bendish, who was English ambassador from 1647 to 1660, and who hired him as

a translator. Ali Bey also served Heneage Finch, Lord Winchilsea, ambassador from 1662 to

1664, and it was during this second period that Levinus Warner, the Dutch ambassador,

recruited him to translate the Bible. Ali Bey must not have been very busy in his other work

for Lord Winchilsea if he was able to finish both a draft and a revised translation of the Bible

in the four-year period 1662-65.

Ali Bey's relationship with the two ambassadors raises a question. Were Ali Bey and his

scribes paid by Warner, or did Winchelsea pay Ali's salary and second him to Warner? It has

been supposed that funding for the entire term of the Dutch project came from Comenius'

benefactor, Laurens de Geer, the merchant of Amsterdam. As discussed above, Comenius

and Golius did not know that Ali Bey was the name of their translator until after Warner's

death, so how would de Geer have designated funds for his salary? The loss of Warner's

papers probably means that these questions will never be answered.

At the beginning of the Glasgow manuscript of Ali Bey’s translation of the Anglican

catechism (a diglot text with Turkish and Latin in parallel columns) there is a dedication to

285
Neudecker (1994), p. 372, n.49.

286
Behar (1990), p. 12; Neudecker (2005), p. 176; (1996), p. 171; Schroeder says “twenty full years” (1739,
pages unnumbered).

287
Neudecker (2005), p. 193, an anonymous document in the Thomas Smith papers.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 129
Sir Thomas Bendish’s son. 288
This raises questions of chronology. Either Ali Bey had a

friendship with young Bendish several years before he was hired by the ambassador, which

is usually dated to 1657, or this dating of the beginning of his employment at the embassy is

wrong. It is conceivable that Ali Bey’s work on the catechism ca. 1653, when the dedication

to young Bendisch was written, led immediately to his hiring by the ambassador. In this

case, Ali Bey’s 19 years as a slave, including his time with the Turkish officer in Egypt, would

have to be fit into the period between 1632 or 1634, the most probable dates for his capture

by the Tatars, and 1653, when he translated the catechism.

Ali Bey — First Dragoman?

A firman (decree) in the Ottoman archives for the year 1669 shows that Ali Bey was paid for a

term of service to the Ottoman state, but his official position is not mentioned. 289 Hyde is the

source of the statement that Ali Bey rose to be “first dragoman” (chief translator) to the

sultan;290 if this is so, it cannot have happened until after 1670—long after his term of slavery

and at least five years after he finished the Bible translation. Neudecker speculates

reasonably that Ali Bey’s desire to go to England, which he expressed in his letter to Basire,

may have been foiled by an offer of a high position in the sultan’s service, since governments

generally try to prevent the defection of civil servants who would take too much information

with them. However, no evidence has surfaced from the Ottoman archives to confirm that

Ali Bey was ever first dragoman.

Elçin casts aspersions on the European sources that claim this, noting that Ali Bey was later

dismissed from the sultan’s service for making translation errors and therefore could not

have risen to the honored position of first dragoman. 291 He concedes only that he might have

been second dragoman, for which he cites an Ottoman writer of the 17th century but fails to

provide a quotation or full bibliographic data. 292 Malcolm bows to Elçin’s view that Ali Bey

288
Personal correspondence from Hannah Neudecker.

289
Neudecker (1996), p. 171, citing Elçin (1976), p. v.

290
Hyde’s preface in Bobovius (1712 [1690]), op.cit., p. 105; Neudecker (2005), p. 188.

291
Elçin (1976), p. vi.
292
Elçin, pp. v-vi. His reference seems incomplete: Hezârfen Hüseyin, Tenkih-I Tevârih-I Mülûk, Bâb-üs sâbi, 1083
A.H. (= 1672 C.E.).

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 130
was second dragoman; whereas Neudecker calls him first dragoman, following Hyde. 293
The

issue is how much credence should be given to Hyde on this point, especially since Ottoman

records show (according to Elçin) that other men occupied the position of first dragoman

during the 1670s.

Ali Bey’s Faith

It has been asserted that Ali Bey’s knowledge of the Genevan Psalter proves that he was from

one of the Protestant communities in Lwów. 294 The documentary basis for this claim goes

back to Hyde in 1690, and it is true that Catholic Poland was tolerant of religious dissent in

this period, but Ali Bey never tells us in his own writings that he had been a Protestant.

Ali Bey set the Psalms to music toward the end of his life, after he had translated the Bible. It

is reasonable to speculate, therefore, that a copy of the Genevan Psalter, from which he

adapted the tunes to the Turkish modal system, was given to him by one of his European

friends during or after the Bible translation project. In Drabík’s exhortation to Comenius, he

mentioned the translation of “Psalms and hymns” as one of the means of appealing to the

Turks.295 So Comenius himself may have sent the Genevan Psalter to Turkey, or Warner may

have take it with him when he took up his post in Constantinople. Other likely explanations

being available, there is no need to presume that Bobowski knew this Protestant musical

tradition from his youth.

Some time after his capture Bobowski was circumcised 296 and converted to Islam. This was

normal treatment for war captives and other slaves. It was sanctioned both in Islamic

tradition and in the Bible, where we read that God commanded Abraham to circumcise all

men and boys in his household, including his slaves from other nations (Genesis 17).

But did Ali Bey remain a closet Christian? In 1690 Thomas Hyde wrote as follows in his

introduction to De Turcarum Liturgia, a Latin work by Albertus Bobovius (Ali Bey) on Islamic

worship and religious customs:

293
Hyde’s preface in Bobovius (1712 [1690] ), p. 105; Malcolm (2007a), p. 331.

294
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lviv.

295
Malcolm (2007b), p. 495.

296
The only specific evidence for his circumcision is an anonymous document in the Thomas Smith papers (ca.
1668), transcribed in Neudecker (2005), p. 193; cf. Neudecker (1996), p. 171.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 131
It is highly to be deplored, that he was prematurely snatched away by death before
he could return to the Christian faith, which he intended to do wholeheartedly,
longing to be able to earn his bread in some honest way in England among
Christians and to be removed from the pressure of the infidel. 297

This longing is confirmed by Ali Bey’s letter to Basire in the Thomas Smith papers (dated

circa 1668), where he pleads circumspectly for employment as a translator in the court of

King Charles II. An anonymous note in the same collection tells us that Bobowski had made

“promisses” [sic] to return to the church if work could be found for him in England.298

Apostasy from Islam while he was living in Turkey could have resulted in the death penalty.

We also have several oblique statements of Christian faith in Bobowski’s own hand. At the

end of his draft manuscript of Matthew’s Gospel he wrote: “Mattanın İncili tamam oldu ve’l-

mecdü'l-illahi ebeden” (Matthew’s Gospel is finished and glory be to God forever). The same

note appears at the end of Mark’s Gospel with the addition of “da’imen ebeden amîn” (always

and forever amen).299 At the end of the Gospel of John he writes the date in Latin as “Anno

Salutis Humanæ 1664” (in the year of the salvation of humanity 1664), which feels like a

strong statement of Christian faith. “Ani a partu Virginis 1666” (In the year of the Virgin’s

offspring 1666) appears on the title page of his Grammatica Turcico-Latina. On the basis of

these colophons Neudecker notes that Ali Bey’s diligence in translating not only the Bible

but several other Christian books is evidence of his personal “preoccupation with

Christianity.” 300

Elçin and Behar doubt that Ali Bey was anything but a complete and honorable Muslim and

speculate hopefully that he made the pilgrimage to Mecca. Rumors of Ali Bey’s wish to

return to the church sound to Elçin like European propaganda, created by his European

friends to popularize his writings or his legacy. Elçin cites several pages of Islamic

sentiments in Ali Ufkî’s musical treatise, Mecmûa-i Sâz ü Söz, including hints that he had Sufi

tendencies. Against this it must be said that Bobovius’ (Ali Bey’s) description of the hajj in De

Turcarum Liturgia is too detailed to be an eye-witness account, reading instead like a Latin

297
Hyde in Bobovius (1712 [1690]), p. 105f.; the English translation of Hyde’s preface is quoted in Neudecker
(1994), p. 372, n. 49; cf. Riggs (1940), p. 238.

298
Neudecker (1996), p. 177.

299
Toprak, pp. 184 and 226, transcribing Cod. Or. 390d.

300
Neudecker (1994), p. 372, n.49; Neudecker (1996), p. 176, n.58, transcribing Cod. Or. 390d, folio 116a.
Toprak’s transcription of the same manuscript omits this colophon at the end of John.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 132
translation of an Islamic guide book for pilgrims. It does not feel like a travel diary, lacking

lively images of scenes in Mecca that an eyewitness would have been eager to record. An

investigation into the sources of his description of Mecca would be a valuable contribution

to his biography.

Elçin weakens his argument with the sentiment that nobody would ever want to leave

beautiful Istanbul and move to England — a mirror image of the special pleading which he

deplores in Europeans. More to the point, Behar notes that Ali Bey’s last European friends,

John Covell and Antoine Galland, do not mention his intention to move to England or leave

Islam in their reflections on him after his death. 301 In the scenario deduced by Neudecker

from the Thomas Smith papers, Ali Bey would have abandoned any thought of leaving

Turkey when his plea to Basire in England was not answered. When he then achieved a

position in the sultan’s service as a free man, he would have had no further worldly

motivation to return to Christianity.

The sentiment expressed in the introduction to the Açıklamalı Kutsal Kitap of 2010 that Ali

Bey was “a Muslim in name with a Christian heart”302 has a long history going back to Hyde.

It may be true but it lacks nuance—what we actually know from the historical record is more

limited. Ali Bey’s writings reveal that the Bible and Christian writings engaged his interest,

and he wrote in a note to Warner when he completed his draft Bible translation that his

work had been “for love not labor” (amor non labor fuit).303 So we know that Ali Bey did not

share the opinion of most Muslims that the Bible is a corrupted and therefore dangerous

book.

Islam engaged his interest as well, as expressed in the Turkish musical tradition, and he tried

to translate the vocabulary of the Bible in ways Muslims would understand, e.g. he often

used the word namaz to translate “prayer”, but this was edited out by Kieffer. On the one

hand, the fourteen psalms of Ali Bey’s Mezamir are highly contextualized in an Islamic

theological framework. On the other hand, the way he noted the dates when he completed

several books of the New Testament seem to be affirmations of Christian faith.

301
Behar (1990), p. 43.

302
Açıklamalı Kutsal Kitap (AKIT, 2009), page x. This sentiment is found also in Cooper (1901).

303
Neudecker (1994), p. 372.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 133
Anything we presume to know about Ali Bey’s spiritual life must come from a careful

examination of his Bible translation and other writings. Both Muslims and Christians will do

well to observe this rule.

A Summary of the Writings of Ali Bey, a.k.a. Albertus Bobovius

After he gained his freedom, Ali Bey made his living as a translator and writer, paid or

encouraged by Christian scholars from Europe. He was a prolific writer, translating religious

works and writing linguistic and musical books of his own. His translation of the Anglican

catechism at the behest of Isaac Basire has been mentioned above. His Grammatica Turcia-

Latina has been studied by Neudecker as a source on 17th-century Ottoman Turkish. 304 His

Latin essay on Muslim ritual life, De Turcarum Liturgia, was printed in English in 1712 with a

collection of articles on Muslim customs by other authors. 305 His essay about life in the

Topkapı, which was printed in three European languages during the 17th century, has

recently appeared in Turkish translation.306 It is an important historical source because it

describes and maps the palace before the “Great Harem Fire” of 1665 destroyed its old

structures. His transcriptions of Ottoman music were unpublished until a Turkish edition by

Elçin in 1976 of his Mecmua-i Saz ü Söz307 (instrumental and vocal works) opened the door on

Ali Ufkî’s place in musical history. 308 A new study by Behar of a further musical work

appeared in 2009.309 Ali Bey’s Psalms (Mezamir), discussed above, are evidence that his

musical and religious interests converged toward the end of his life. 310

304
Neudecker (1996); ms. in the Bodleian, Oxford, ms Hyde 43, Ethé, col. 1252. no. (199) 2237.

305
Bobovius (1712), op.cit.

306
Stephanos Yerasimos and Annie Berthier, Topkapı Sarayı’nda Yaşam: Albertus Bobovius ya da Santuri Ali Ufki
Bey’in Anıları. 3rd printing (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2009 ), pp. 12-22. Trans. Cem Berktay from Topkapi:
Relation du Sérail du Grand Seigneur (Arles, 1999); see especially the introduction: “Sunuş: Bir İçoğlanın
Anıları,” pp. 9-22.

307
Manuscripts of the Mecmûa-i Sâz ü Söz are preserved in the British Museum, London (Sloane Collection, No.
3114) and the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

308
Şükrü Elçin, (1976), op.cit.; “‘Ali Ufkî’, Türk Ansiklopedisi (Ankara, 1945-),cilt 32, s. 483-485; Turgut Kut, “Ali
Ufkî Bey—Albert Bobowski,” İslam Ansiklopedisi, cilt II, s. 456-457, URL: http://www.umutrehberi.com; Walter
Feldman, Music of the Early Ottoman Court (Berlin: Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 1996); Marvin J.
Ward, “Ottoman classics,” URL: http://www.cvnc.org/reviews/2002/july/OttomanClassics.html.
309
Cem Behar, Saklı Mecmua; Ali Ufkî Bibliothéque Nationale De France'taki (Turc 292) Yazması (İstanbul: Yapı
Kredi Yayınlar, 2008)

310
For a summary list of his writings see Behar (1990), p. 33; for an annotated bibliography see Neudecker
(1996), pp. 171-178.
Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/
Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 134
The Death of Ali Bey

Ali Bey’s death is usually dated ca. 1675, though 1677 may be more accurate: Behar has

offered arguments that would set the date of death more precisely. 311 Except for a trip to

Egypt, he had lived in Istanbul since he was a young man, so he was probably buried there,

but no gravestone has yet been found. We do not know whether he ever married.

A few years later the Ottoman army was defeated by the Holy League of the Catholic

powers at the Battle of Vienna (1683). At that point the curtain came down on Calvino-

Turkism — that fanciful puzzle of the spiritual unification of Turks and Protestants, in which

Ali Bey’s translation of the Bible was one of the pieces. Ali Bey did not live to see the Polish

army of King Jan III Sobieski make the Catholic victory at Vienna possible. Fifty years earlier

it had been the military weakness of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that had allowed

Tatar raiders to cross its borders on slave raids. They carried off a gifted young Polish

musician and linguist to the Istanbul slave market, thus contributing unawares to the

Turkish translation of the Bible.

311
Behar (1990), pp. 41-43.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 135

APPENDIX V: THE OTTOMAN SLAVE TRADE in the 17th CENTURY

Because Ali Bey was a slave it is sometimes said that he was a victim of the devşirme. This

was a levy on Christian families in Ottoman lands, whose boys were taken to Istanbul to be

trained from childhood for the sultan’s service, especially for the Ottoman army, the Yeni

Çeri (Janissaries). Bobowski, however, was a native of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,

outside Ottoman territory, and he was probably already a young man, not a boy, when he

was captured. The correct term for his status is esir (Tatar jasyr, from the same Arabic root),

meaning human war booty. Such captives were held for ransom or sold into slavery. The

sultan’s agents frequented the slave markets, looking for galley slaves for the Ottoman navy.

Now and then they found special cases like Wojciech Bobowski, though in his case it has

been deduced that he was bought first by another Muslim family in Istanbul and only later

sold to the sultan.

Tatar raids took hundreds of thousands of Slavic and Circassian men and women, boys and

girls, during the 16th and 17th centuries and brought them to the slave market in Kaffa on

the Crimean Peninsula. This was the famous “white slave trade.” Estimates on the high side

run to one million Poles plus two million Russians and Ukrainians, with 20,000 per year as a

reliable estimate from contemporary sources in the 17th century. 312 Slave-raiding was a

strong sector of the Crimean economy, with Istanbul its primary market to the south: 70% of

Black Sea slaves were sent on to Istanbul. The effect on Russia was devastating. Unable to

prevent the raids, the czar started collecting a tax in 1551 to ransom Russians from Tatar

captivity and later instituted a regulated system in 1649. A higher price was paid for nobles

than for peasants. Poland, however, had no such system.

The Italians had dominated the Black Sea transit route for slaves from the time of the Fourth

Crusade: in 1204 the Genoese established their first trading colonies in the Crimea. After the

Ottoman conquest of Constantinople the Turks expelled the Genoese, authorized the

Crimean Tatars as the Ottoman forward line in the slave business, and set up Greeks,

Armenians and Jews as middle men in Kaffa and other Black Sea ports. The Istanbul slave

312
Eizo Matsuki, “The Crimean Tatars and their Russian-Captive Slaves: An Aspect of Muscovite-Crimean
Relations in the 16th and 17th Centuries,” p. 172ff. URL: http://www.econ.hit-
u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 136
market was operated by Jews exclusively. 313
In other words, Muslims were both the

beneficiaries and the military wing of the slave trade, but the Ottoman dhimmi peoples, i.e.

the Christians and Jews, were its businessmen. In 1648 a French officer visited Kaffa and

reported:

In the city there are not many [Muslim] Tatars, there live chiefly Christians who
keep in their hands many slaves which have been purchased from the Tatars, who
had plundered and seized them in Poland or in Muscovy. This city has twelve
Greek churches, thirty-two Armenian churches, and a Catholic church; St. Peter’s.
In the city there are probably five or six thousand households, but we find here
over 30,000 slaves.”314

The Turkish historian Halil İnalcık has shown that

a constant influx of human labor (slaves) as military men, craftsmen and domestic
laborers, was indispensable for the society of the Ottoman Empire [whose]
growing imperial structure needed ever more officials, and each of them was an
eager buyer [of slaves] for his entourage.315

The Ottoman navy depended on large numbers of Slavic slaves for their galley ships where

mortality was very high; so Ali Bey was a lucky slave, as these things go. When shipping

turned to sails and then to steam, galley ships went out of fashion and demand for slaves

declined. This economic factor was the death knell of the Tatar raids. The numbers of slaves

in Turkey dwindled in the 19th century, though slavery was never made illegal in the

Ottoman Empire.316

Ali Bey was not the only Ottoman slave who earned a name for himself. Other famous

products of the Black Sea trade included the Mamluks, or slave warriors. The most successful

of these were the slaves who populated the army of the Ayubbid dynasty, being trained from

boyhood in Egypt much as the Devşirme boys were in Istanbul. The Mamluks eventually

took over Egypt and ruled it as sultans for 250 years. During this time only slaves had access

to power in Egypt — a paradoxical social structure. The Mamluks were defeated by the

313
Matsuki, p. 180.

314
Matsuki, p. 178.

315
H. İnalcık, “Service Labor in the Ottoman Empire,” in The Mutual Effects of the Islamic and Judeo-Christian
Worlds: The East European Patterns, ed. Abraham Ascher, Tibor Halasi-Kun, and Béla K. Kiràly (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1979), pp. 38-39, quoted in Matsuki, p. 176.

316
Y. Hakan Erdem, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire and its Demise, 1800–1909 (London: Palgrave Macmillan,
1996); Osmanlıda Köleliğin Sonu, 1800-1909, trans. Bahar Tırnakçı (İstanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2004).

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 137
Ottomans and their sultanate came to an end in 1517, but they continued as Egyptian feudal

lords under Ottoman rule until the 19th century.

In Islamic societies a slave was not always condemned to slavery for life, because the slave

owner earned both spiritual merit (Ar. sawâb, Tü. sevap) and social honor by freeing a slave.

Slaves trained for the sultan’s service might be freed after a term of seven years or re-

enrolled for additional terms. We know that Ali Bey served (almost?) three terms of seven

years, or “three prenticeships.”317 Slave women in the sultan’s service were sometimes

married off to Ottoman officers or civil servants; so it is said that Circassian girls vied for the

honor of being taken as slaves into the sultan’s harem, knowing that they might later become

ladies of standing as free wives of wealthy Turkish men.318

Or at least such stories were common tropes among the Ottoman elite. This noble side of

Ottoman slavery tends to be romanticized in Turkish historical accounts as a way of painting

slavery with the brush of kindness and to distinguish it from the chattel slavery of the

American sugar and cotton plantations. The brutal slavery of the galley fleets goes

unmentioned in such accounts; indeed, a full-page spread on Ottoman slavery in the

conservative newspaper Takvim (5 November 2012, p. 14) summarized the work of Turkish

historians on such topics as the generous salaries of the women of the Sultan’s harem, their

daily allowance of cinammon used as a deodorant, and the meritorious manumission of

slaves, but did not mention slavery in the Ottoman galleys.

Believers will feel that it was God’s providence that enslavement was the means by which

Wojciech Bobowski became Ali Bey, a bicultural person with deep experience of Turkish and

Islamic culture. It was also Islamic law on slavery that made his manumission possible after

nineteen years. Indeed, he was freed just in time for his career to merge with the vision of

Comenius — another victim of oppression and exile — to produce a Turkish translation of

the Bible.

Ali Bey does not complain about slavery in his writings, perhaps because it would have been

impolitic to do so. As a privileged esir, a court musician and accomplished tercüman, he had

been dressed in fine clothing and lived on the grounds of the sultan’s palaces in Istanbul and

317
Neudecker (2005), p. 193, an anonymous document in the Thomas Smith papers.

318
The Imperial Harem of the Sultans: Daily life at the Çırağan palace during the 19th century: Memoirs of Leyla
(Saz) Hanımefendi (İstanbul: Hil Yayın, 1999), translated by Landon Thomas from the French, Le Harem
Impériale (Calman-Lévy, 1925), chapter 3.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu
 138
Edirne. It is notable that, when Ali Bey was freed, he did not return to Poland but lived on

productively for another twenty years in Istanbul—the crown jewel of European cities in the

seventeenth century. Among his contributions to Ottoman culture during these years of

freedom was his Turkish Bible, the fountain from which every subsequent translation has

flowed.

Download updated versions from: http://historyofturkishbible.wordpress.com/

Send evaluations and corrections to: bruce.p@post.harvard.edu