Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Review Alter's translation

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Review Alter's translation
  • Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:46:45 +0000

On 05/01/2005 20:00, Bill Rea wrote:

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.''


Fair enough. But you did originally write "paraphrases like the New Living "Translation" ", with the quotes, and "paraphrases posing as translations". The implication was that you did not consider paraphrases, as you defined them, to be translations. It was to that that I objected so strongly. If you are now modifying your definition of "paraphrase" to be a particular variety of translation, a free one, as defined by Collins, then I withdraw my objections, but I expect you also to withdraw "paraphrases posing as translations".

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


This may well be a helpful distinction. But I think you need to use it with care. It seems that there are two incompatible definitions of "paraphrase" going around. The Living Bible is a paraphrase according to both definitions, perhaps. The NLT is perhaps a paraphrase according to your one, but is not according to my one. The KJV is allegedly a paraphrase according to my definition, but is more-or-less "word-for-word" according to your definition.

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.


Agreed that the name is not a good one. But in what way does the NLT differ so widely from the TEV, Dynamic Equivalence, that it may deserve a fourth category? I genuinely want to know what difference you perceive - except that NLT has a different theological outlook. Are you claiming that the NLT is more free? Do you have data to back that up? (You might find some interesting data at http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/studies.htm, although you might not agree with some of the criteria used there.) Or is the difference simply that it was prepared in part as a revision of what you call a paraphrase?

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.


Agreed.


--
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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page