Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Schmuel <schmuel AT escape.com>]

Hi b-hebrew,

<snip the 'paraphrase' definition discussion>

Peter
>Thank you. All of these (except perhaps NWT) are best classified, to my mind 
>at least, as fringe versions rather than mainstream ones. And most of them 
>are generally rather literal. So I don't think these are what Bill had in 
>mind when he commented on "the excesses of paraphrases posing as 
>translations which are striving for originality and novelty in English".

Schmuel
Understood.  I was taking your question literally, and so diverted a bit from 
the modern 
English popular parlance paraphrase question :-)

Peter Kirk,
>My point was that Tyndale made use of the phrasing and vocabulary of 
>Wycliffe's translation, although he also brought it in line with the MT and 
>the Greek NT. But Wycliffe could not use any earlier English version, and so 
>had to invent his own English phrasing and terminology everywhere. (More 
>accurately, there were two Wycliffe versions, and the second one was much 
>more satisfactory; and Wycliffe's personal involvement in the work was 
>small.)

Schmuel
This whole question is a little complicated, we have the Tanach and NT, we 
have the question of Vulgate origins for the Wycliffe NT vs. the TR for the 
Tyndale NT.  And we have multiple versions of Tyndale.  

If one compares the phrasing of the NT, how close is Tyndale to Wycliffe ?
http://alleluya.com/ might help.  I have a Tyndale edition in text, also. 

And in the Tanach, did Wycliffe use the Masoretic Text as his base, or the 
Vulgate ?
Or a combination ?   And again, how close is the resultant phrasing between 
Tyndale and Wycliffe ?

If you feel to give a brief response on this, it might help, especially if 
you have done some of the
comparisons. 

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/