I appreciate the work you are doing.
Personally, I would caution myself against being the arbiter between the pure text and what I think might hinder the gospel.
God will soften the conscience of the reader...if they are offended at "racial" words, how will they not be offended at being Christ's bondslave?
For me, I want the pure text as written by the author.
If I made textual changes without marking them, 500 years from now someone might see my work as the original.
Who gives me the right to do this to somebody else's work, without notifying the reader of these specific changes and where they are?
Just my opinion...
Blessings!
Thank you for the kind words. As far as keeping to the "pure text," literally, the only three words I purposely find alternatives for is "niggard, niggardly, and faggot." I am still considering changing "ejaculations" to its proper alternative. Those are it. The texts I edit still have all the "ests" and "eths;" and the "thee's and thou's." Outside of those, I only edit words that you cannot find with a simple google look up. If it takes extensive digging, I will change it to its alternative; if I cannot find an alternative, I will leave it as is.
Concerning the editing of texts; you are going to be hard-pressed to find many texts; even from the major publishers, that have not been altered or "modernized." Unless they are a 19th century reprint, or a reprint of the facsimile; most everyone changes them; from Banner, to RHB, to SDG, to Puritan Publications. The extent in which their modernization encompasses, I do not know; I do know in some of their works, no mention of what has been altered, what has been left out, or what has been restructured is included. Instead all that is included is a front matter explanation that some words have been modernized, or some paragraphs shortened, or even the whole thing re-written to be more palatable to a modern audience. While I am not comparing myself to these publishers in any way, shape, or form; I am saying that as far as editing goes; if not being a strict purist is a crime, then I am in good company.
Furthermore, none of the terms I am giving alternatives for are theological terms or concepts, nor are they complex words that have a myriad of descriptive possibilities. They are simply three words that can be easily reworded within their context.
Truthfully, at least in America, niggard, or niggardly are not part of the common vernacular. Given the republishing predecessors of the Puritans, it seems well within the rights of the genre to make such editorial changes, and not only that; I will probably get flack for making so few changes as I do. Editing the "eths" and "est" is pretty easy. At best I could batch replace, at worst I could highlight every instance and do it individually. But I personally enjoy the way the language of their day sounds.
500 years from now, people will look back and see the indication in the front matter, like most Puritan texts that have been retypset, modernized, and republished. And, if they want the "pure" they are free to hunt down a facsimile, or if TCP is still around, to look there. I was told once by someone, you cant make everyone happy. If I made no spelling changes, it would get classified as unreadable. If I dont modernize, it gets positioned as not tailored to the common reader. And if I do modernize it gets disregarded by puritsts. I can work within the realm of all three. But I cant be all three. That is why the only unaltered text you will find is the original.
The conclusion is people are free to read them or not. I am working presently on Downames "The Guide to Godliness," at the request of Monergism. It is a beautiful text. Niggard and niggardly came up 6 times within it. The alterations were easy enough, but if someone is going to not read it; an 1100 page work, because 6 words were changed; with full warning in the front matter some alterations were made in the name of modernization; well, that is on them. And like Dr. Yuille mentioned, when questioned about his editing Puritan works, how some people complain of his effort to modernize; I paraphrase, "if it bothers them, its not for them."
I have considered what has been mentioned here, but have really yet to find a good reason, in light of the prolific editing done by all the major Puritan rePublishers, why in this instance its detramentive to the text. And as such, it is just the way I am going to do the texts I do. But, with that being said, again, all of these works are public domain; and if keeping niggard, niggardly, and faggot is so important to someone; they are free to spend the time editing, and creating eWorks or rePubs of their own. I have also been getting feedback elsewhere, feedback such as this:
"Totally agree in this instance. Whenever I come across it when reading, it always causes me to pause even though I know what the meaning [is.] For the lack of a better alternative I would do the same."
This is not something I take lightly. I have had works where I have had to hunt down an alternative facsimile, because the one I was working with was printed wrong, then had to handtype 10 or 20 pages just to correct the text. I know that is nothing for people who have retyped whole works, but it is for me having dealt mostly with pretranscribed texts. The point is, I am serious about ePublishing correct texts. And, Lord Willing I will continue to be as long as he drives me to do them.
