Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
>[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Bill Rea
>Sent: Friday, 7 January 2005 9:50 AM
>
>On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
>> This is a good example. A sophisticated and highly educated reader may
>> realise that they need to work on figuring out the meaning in context of
>> "cleanness of teeth". An ordinary person reading this, with limited
>> understanding of the background, will not realise that there is a
>> problem but will understand it according to their own context and
>> presuppositions. And, within a western society, their first thought will
>> be that God has blessed his people with a new improved variety of
>> toothpaste! What to you and me is an obvious anachronism (although
>> presumably even then people may have made some effort to keep their
>> teeth clean) is in fact how many people would understand that verse.
>
>There is what I call an implied contract between a translator and
>a reader. If a reader purchases a literal style translation the
>translators have delivered to him/her a translation which adheres
>very closely to the original languages. Part of this implied
>contract is that when the reader finds something they don't
>understand they will go to the study aids such as commentaries
>to find out what it means.
>
>
But isn't that the problem - that they only go for help when they realise
they don't understand?  How often do they treat an idiom as literal because
it seems to make sense, and so they miss what the original means?  If we are
prone to misunderstanding texts from earlier periods even though they seem
to be written in English much as we use it, but misunderstand the thought
behind the words, can we really believe that most ordinary English speakers
who have a literal translation because it is recommended as being 'more
accurate' will be able to tell when they *should* seek help?

Kevin Riley