Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 04/01/2005 20:33, Bill Rea wrote:

> ...
>
> Those who like paraphrases like the New Living "Translation"...
>  

The New Living Translation is not a paraphrase (unlike the Living 
Bible), but a translation from the original languages.

...

> It seems to me, from what I've read about Alter's work, it is a welcome
> counter-balance to the excesses of paraphrases posing as translations ...
>  

Please name any English version which is in fact a paraphrase, i.e. an 
adaptation of a previous text in the same language, rather than a 
translation, i.e. based on the original language texts - and which does 
not call itself a paraphrase as the Living Bible does. I know that it 
has been alleged that the King James Version and the New World 
Translation were in fact based only on previous English versions, but 
this certainly not entirely true. Of couse nearly all translations are 
also compared with existing translations. I expect this is true also of 
Alter's version.

> ... which are striving for originality and novelty in English. In the words
> of the reviewer:-
>
>  
>
> > There is nothing worse than a religious translation that reaches down to
> > its intended audience with modernisms and colloquialisms; for one thing,
> > modernisms and colloquialisms date so quickly.
> >    
>
> I heartily agree.
>  

I heartily disagree.

--
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: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 03/01/2005