Here I’ve collected a few thoughts in general on the process so far during the initial Phase 1 work on Genesis.
Please read the Introduction if you are unfamiliar with the rationale behind this project.
Some unexpected issues which arose during the work.
Although this is described as “phase 1” it is really going to be used for Phase 1, 2 and 3. This is because in actuality, from a practical standpoint, phase 1, 2 and 3 are really just one phase in which we re-word the KJV to suit our fancy. After that we will start writing commentary immediately (as we change the text) therefore this should really be a “part 1,” with the theological consistency pass, cross-referencing and feature freeze done in a part 2. From the blog (http://noachide.ca/2019/12/04/nsv-new-phase-system/):
Remaining consistent is a bit of a problem. An example is “I pray thee”. In earlier chapters I had just removed it, or sometimes left it, then later around Genesis 37 decided to keep it in as ‘I pray you’. “Behold,” and “As it came to pass” and similar are other somewhat monotonous presentations I would like to change, but I am worried about an underlying consistancy. In this vein also is ‘unto’; for the most part I simply changed it to ‘to’ but now I feel there are many instances where it should remain ‘unto’. Quotes are also problematic. On my iPad quotes lean (non-ascii) but on my PC and iMac they are ASCII quotes. This can be resolved by search and replace, but it is somewhat annoying. From this the iPad/dokuwiki has shown itself to be troublesome to edit on beyond a first pass.
I have also considered retaining archaic language as royal language when spoken by the LORD. For example the LORD would speak ‘unto’ a person versus to him (for obvious reasons).
To solve this issue I have decided to worry about it more in the second pass of Phase 1, where I do comparisons between versions (especially DRA which seems to have proven it’s worth with some very interesting wording). And of course checking interlinear versions and looking at the Hebrew. The main combative technique will be to simply note the major inconsistencies and how I deal with them on a page like this, so that I am aware of them during the second (and possibly third) passes.
Strangely enough despite going line by line there were dozens of examples where I had forgotten to remove archaic language. Had I rushed through? I used ‘search’ to find at least a dozen examples of ‘hath’, for example, that had remained after the first (quick) pass. I will have to do a search on any other terms I find remaining to ensure they are all gone. Needless to say I think they will all be removed by a second (comparison) pass anyways.
In any case for future books it may be prudent to do a pre-pass consisting of search-and-replace; keywords like ‘hath’ and so forth are cropping up well past the end of the second wording pass which was supposed to have removed them all (prior to the comparison pass). For more information on this plan this see ‘search and replace’ below.
TO the end of the above, here are some terms I have found remaining after two separate wording passes:
See below ‘retention of archaic languaue’
Especially ‘shalt’. The problem here seems to be that there is no good replacement for the meaning of ‘shalt’. “Will” is a bad-sounding replacement, and ‘shall’ denies the idea that it absolutely will come to pass, in a manner of ways. Retaining ‘shalt’ underscores, at the least when the LORD is speaking, that not only is it a ‘shall’ but it is a past-tense ‘shall’ which has already come to pass outside of time by the will of the LORD.
In this sense there is now a special leaning towards retaining archaic language (but not archaic grammar or obtuse wording) at least when spoken by the LORD. “Thou shall not kill” sounds better than “You will not kill” or “You shall not kill”, and, in this case ‘shalt’ loses it’s meaning as a completed ‘shall’ anyways. This is starting to have a nice word-feel to it versus the earlier changes I made fully away from archaic language in the early chapters. It will have to be fully realized during the comparison pass.
Now that the first pass, comprised of preformatting the text and a quick edit for wording has been completed, the second pass is intended to bring the wording up to more modern standards by comparing against other (mode) modern translations such as DRA. The original KJV will be considered on equal footing, as well as likely RSV and some others, for ‘comparison purposes’; to ensure a familiar reading where appropriate and to use those golden turns of phrase that litter the DRA wherever I can.
The third pass is intended to be a theological consistency pass. During this time the text will be compared to JPS and Stone editions (among others) and commentary will be written and added. After this it is assumed that the book will be in MVP condition.
During this time (after the first pass) development of the text on the wiki will slow and probably cease, and be replaced entirely by a version in an online database. The current version of this is at https://www.noachide.ca/bible. If you can’t find any more recent version here on the wiki, the continuance is likely to be found there instead.
I suppose that the wiki here and the blog will then be used mainly for notes and updates; I also am guessing that most of the process notes into the future will be kept private. The notes until this point have been revealed for interest’s sake only; and as a sort of ‘proof’ that I didn’t rip off any non-PD version of the Bible. If you think I ripped off your copyrighted translation, you probably didn’t read the phase 1 document, which lists every single source and they’re all in the public domain. So it should be clear. I suppose that these notes could theoretically be kept beside the verses in a database, as well. I’ll see about that later.
Wrapped up in the idea of moving from doku to web/app is the idea of how the material will be presented. Sefer.org for example has an interesting presentation where a sidebar opens up and you can select various kinds of commentary. However, as a unique product, we are not interested in a multitude of commentary per-se but in having a quality commentary presented alongside the text. In this way an app will help us more than a doku in allowing us to have ‘two wiki pages’ open in either a footnote style or sidebar style in the same way it might appear in a book. In particular I am a huge fan of the way the comments appear in my NRSV Wesley Study Bible, in the same way they appear in my Stone Edition Chumash. The ability to hide them and just focus on the text is also an issue. As will be the ability to click on notes and words and get more information — i.e. a more modern, tech/app enabled presentation, which also supports a book format. In this way the database can be used to print/reformat the text into various formats by script, for later editing, formatting or conversion as required. Ex. A markdown version. A cache-able HTML version. Possibly as direct-to-print PDF, .tex/LaTeX or DOC (MS-Word) or LibreOffice version. And so forth.