Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 3:15 "bruise"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 3:15 "bruise"
  • Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:00:55 +0000

On 22/12/2004 21:27, Jim West wrote:

At 03:55 PM 12/22/2004, you wrote:

Jom:

All translations are paraphrases, at least to a certain extent.


agreed


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.


absolutely


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 translater.


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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page