Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Review Alter's translation

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Review Alter's translation
  • Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:38:55 +0000

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page