Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>]

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Peter Kirk wrote:

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

See below.

> 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.

First, about paraphrases. I own a fine British Dictionary, a Collins,
which has as one of the definitions of paraphrase -- ``A free
translation into the same or another language''. I know you do not
accept this definition, but I do. I get the impression you find it
offensive based on your dictionary's definition. So let us agree to
disagree on this point otherwise we're just saying ``My dictionary
is bigger than your dictionary and my dictionary can beat your
dictionary up.''

Secondly, I find it helpful to use a three category model when
talking to people about English versions of the Bible. The three
are

1) Word-for-word e.g. New American Standard Bible
2) Dynamic Equivalence e.g Today's English Version
3) Paraphrase e.g. the original Living Bible

I use this in the same way I would use a statistical model -- all
models are wrong but some are useful. I find it helpful in conveying
to people who have no knowledge of the original languages where
a particular ``translation'' sits on the spectrum, its strengths
and weaknesses, and what it is most useful for.

If you object to such a model on more than an ``I don't like your
choice of words'' basis then you need provide a more useful model
which I can use with lay men and women. It *may* be time to add a
fourth marker to the spectrum to accomdate versions like the New
Living Translation (which was a terrible choice of name) but I
need to be convinced the added complexity will increase its
usefulness. To me the NLT can be easily positioned on the spectrum
without having to give it a special category of its own.

For people with some theological education it possible to usefully
add a second dimension to the model -- that of ``theological outlook''.
It is clear that many translations are aimed at a particular segment
of the religious public, they say as much in the preface or
introduction. At key points they slant their translation in a
manner which suits their intended audience's beleifs. Bible buyers
and readers ought to be aware of this too.

Bill Rea, IT Services, Canterbury  University \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz              </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332      /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                  (/'

>
> 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
>
>