Administrator
|
OK, here is a first stab at a set of translation guidelines. I’d appreciate input on this :) Some of this is from the FAQ and some is what I have personally been doing.
Russell Translation Guidelines ----------------------------- 1. The Open English Bible project aims to create a translation of the Bible into formal but contemporary English which is completely free of copyright restrictions and available without cost for any purpose. 2. In general, the OEB aims:
3. The normative text for the OEB New Testament is the Westcott & Hort critical text. (Since the NA27/28 is subject to a claim of copyright, W&H remains the best available (public domain) text.) The commonly accepted Western non-interpolations in the NT are included as footnotes. The Pericope Adulterae is at John 7:53-8:11 and footnoted as not being in all manuscripts. 4. The normative text for the OEB Old Testament is the Codex Leningradensis (Leningrad Codex), specifically the electronic version of the Westminster Leningrad Codex. Alternate readings in the LXX may be footnoted but are secondary. 5. Some guidelines for translators:
|
Like all of these!
Is there any need to describe the idea of where the OEB is trying to be in terms of a word-for-word translation style, vs thought for thought translation, vs trying for a balance between word-for-word and thought-for-thought translation? |
Administrator
|
5.4 is sort of in that area. The difficulty with word-for-word vs thought-for-thought is that those terms have become so overused and polemicised (is that a word :) that I’m not sure they are much help to us. Certainly professional translators don’t seem to use them much. I would maybe say that for our purposes - a word-for-word approach that doesn’t end up with natural, gramatically normal English has gone too far, (see e.g. Young’s Literal Version) - a thought-for-thought approach that destroys too much of the worldview of the original has also gone too far (see e.g. the Message, or the Cotton Patch Version) But both of those can be useful in other situations. The Cotton Patch Version is great, but I wouldn’t use it as a primary translation in communal worship. I guess I don’t think of w4w and t4t as being opposed and therefore needing balancing. They are two aspects of translation which can work together. - Russell
|
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |