Peter von Kaehne wrote:
Chris Little wrote:
Does that all sound reasonable?
In principle, yes and particularly wrt the conservative approach you
suggest. It would be easy to go overboard with enthusiasm and then
create a mess which will be impossible to clear up.
But wrt the protestant Russian Synodal versification - I think such
variations are relevant if they become stable variations in their own
right and have a significant number of translations in their fold. If
all/most Central Asian translations use this versification, in this book
order and without apocrypha etc, then I think there is solid argument
for incorporating it.
It's pretty clear to me that the books have been re-ordered from what
the translator intended. A good reason to do this in MK is simply that
it vastly simplifies the task of adding alternative versification
support. But it is also clear from the IBT website that some of the
site's maintainers are unfamiliar with the intended book order:
If you consult the PDF downloads on their site, you can see that book
order is often as expected of the Russian v11n. (e.g.
http://www.ibt.org.ru/english/bible/tkm.htm) But in other cases, and
specifically those cases where every book is listed as a separate
download, the book order is re-arranged to that of the Protestant canon
(Vulgate book order). (e.g. http://www.ibt.org.ru/english/bible/uzb.htm)
A Russian Orthodox Bible should have the order Philemon, Hebrews,
Revelation for the final 3 books.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
