[b-hebrew] Genesis 3:15 "bruise"
peterkirk at qaya.org
Wed Dec 22 17:00:55 EST 2004
On 22/12/2004 21:27, Jim West wrote:
> At 03:55 PM 12/22/2004, you wrote:
>> All translations are paraphrases, at least to a certain extent.
>> First of all, on a grammatical basis, what is good grammar in one
>> language often is nonsense in another. Already by adjusting the word
>> order, one does a low level of paraphrasing.
> agreed again
>> Secondly, and more importantly, lexemes often have meanings in one
>> language that have no equivelant in another. Sometimes it will be
>> broader, including meanings that are rendered by two or three
>> different lexemes in the target language, sometimes narrower,
>> sometimes a sentence is required to explain a concept that one word
>> does in the originating text. This is not even counting figures of
>> speech, literary devices and euphamisms.
>> Because of these problems, all translations are paraphrases.
> i agree and coutldn't agree more. Nonetheless some translations are
> more "paraphrastic" than others. For instance, the ASV stays fairly
> close to the hebrew and greek texts whereas the NIV and the TEV and
> the NWT stray rather widely from the mark. In this respect they
> resemble paraphrases such as the living bible much more than they do
> translations like ASV and NASB.
>> These same problems exist even working as a lexicographer, let alone
> We are, I think, at one.
Jim, I am also more or less at one with all of your concepts - except
your continuing confusion between NLT and NWT. I just reject your use of
the words "paraphrase" and "paraphrastic" as quite contrary to general
and technical usage. And I note your apparent retraction of your earlier
claim that NIV is a paraphrase and not a translation.
I accept your description of the Living Bible as a "paraphrase" because
it was prepared from the ASV and not from the original languages. NLT
and TEV do indeed superficially resemble the Living Bible more closely
than the ASV; but then a whale superficially resembles a fish more than
a prototypical mammal, but that doesn't make it a fish. That is, this
superficial resemblance factor is independent of whether or not the
versions are in fact paraphrases. An adaptation into modern English of
KJV would be a paraphrase even if it was done very literally and
concordantly and superficially closely resembled ASV.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew