Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

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/