Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

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