...Well, what do you mean by this? Are you referring to contextual adaptations, like the infamous Cotton Patch Bible which transposed the New Testament to the southern USA? The Message and the Living Bible do a bit of this, not much. If you are simply referring to using modern and perhaps colloquial language, then that is what DE does, that is if the DE is intended to be in modern language rather than a pseudo-KJV church language.
With a paraphrase the contract is -- if you were writing this
today how would you put it.
Instead of Leman's system of classification I suggest a better way
is to provide some measure of how well a version delivers on its
implied contract with the reader. ...
... I own copies of the NASB, TEV,In other words, it delivers rather well on its implied contract which is to offer something less literal than NASB but closer to the original than TEV. And this success is measured by its popularity. Of course popularity does not imply accuracy, but it does imply that it is successfully meeting a need, and it can only do that by delivering on its implied contract.
and the NIV and I would say the NASB and TEV have delivered very
well on their contracts with the reader. In my opinion the NIV doesn't
do as good a job. However, if a person says ``I want a version which
is reasonably literal but when the going gets tough I want the translators
to help me out'' then the NIV could be a good choice. On my spectrum it
sits in an area where it's incorporated too much DE and paraphrasing
to be considered a true word-for-word translation, but not enough
to make it a true DE version either. Given its popularity either
that is what people actually want or it is what others have told them
they need.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.