>Fair enough. This is the kind of process which I thought was happening. It
>is not quite paraphrase because the originals are consulted.
I'm not sure simply consulting the originals is good enough to call
something a translation. If a student of Hebrew, for instance, takes his
Hebrew Bible and his TEV and sits at his desk, writing (or typing) his own
"translation" but in reality he is simply writing out the TEV and changing
a word here or there based on his reading of the Hebrew, this can hardly be
called a "fresh translation from the original tongues". A fresh
translation from the original tongues is what Luther did while he was
trapped at the Wartburg. It's what Zwingli did in Zurich each morning of
the week (weekdays) when the "Prophezei" was in session. Its not what the
KJV guys did.
Wycliffe broke the ground- but he did it with the spade of the Vulgate!
>But it is not an independent translation either. And this is how most
>English versions have been done, except for Wycliffe's very first one.
>Ironically one of the few which was not done in this way was "The
>Message", which is described on its back cover as a "paraphrasing
>translation".