Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 07/01/2005 00:35, Bill Rea wrote:

> ...
>
> I don't think the idea of an implied contract between translator and
> reader is understood or accepted by very many. Wayne Leman doesn't
> appear to accept such an idea and those who criticise The Message because
> ``it isn't a real Bible'' don't either. ...

Well, it's not fair to accuse Wayne and others of not accepting an idea 
which as far as I know they have never heard of. I have been on Wayne's 
Bible translation discussion list for several years and never before 
heard of this idea of an implied contract. It seems an interesting idea 
to me, and I'm sure Wayne would think the same. I know he is concerned 
that translations should be suitable for their target audiences. But 
before either Wayne or I would be able to accept it as an idea we would 
need to give it closer examination. Why don't you put it forward for 
discussion on that list?

> ... My reason for using such
> an idea is not to quibble with the translator's end of the contract.
> It is to make clear to the reader that if they are going buy a literal
> style version, e.g. NASB, then they have committed themselves to a lot
> more work to understand the text they have in front of them than if
> they buy a DE style version such as the TEV. Conversely if they buy
> an DE style version then in many, many, places they are cutting themselves
> off from the modes of expressions used by the original texts.
>  

Fair enough - as long as the versions are accurately described.

> I can imagine the translators of the versions ranked poorly on Leman's
> list shaking their heads and saying ``He just doesn't get it.'' If
> you read the opening paragraph of Leman's study you will find he uses
> a single standard for all versions. In my lingo he has one implied
> contract imposed on all versions from the reader's point of view.
> Given some translators worked to a different contract that's pretty
> unfair.
>  

I think you will find that he makes his perspective quite explicit at 
least somewhere on his site. To put it in your terms, he is assuming 
that the implied contract is that the purchaser, an ordinary person 
without special biblical knowledge, has bought a Bible with the 
intention of being able to read and understand it without external help. 
This perhaps implies an implied contract for a DE version. So there is 
some justification in your criticism that word-for-word translations are 
being judged as if they claimed to be DE versions. But the other side of 
that is that some of the word-for-word translations do claim to be 
suitable for such a reader, such as the ESV which is described on its 
promotional website, http://www.gnpcb.org/page/esv.faq, as “one Bible 
for all of life... suitable for any situation”; indeed "personal study" 
is listed as one of those situations, without qualification that the 
reader must already have significant Bible background.

> I want people to ensure both they and their propective translation
> are using the same contract before money changes hands.
>
>  
Agreed. But the version needs to be described accurately. If its 
publishers describe it as “suitable for any situation”, the implied 
contract (and arguably even the explicit legal contract, if the product 
is wrongly described in advertisements) is broken if any situation is 
found for which it is not suitable.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 06/01/2005