Wycliffe could only translate from the NT Vulgate, so that is basically an independent translation.
(I'm not 100% sure about the Tanach)
From peterkirk AT qaya.org Thu Jan 6 07:19:40 2005Return-Path: <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
Hi b-hebrew,
Subject was: Re: [b-hebrew] Review Alter's translation
Schmuel
First, let me say that I am not convinced that the term paraphrase is limited to reworking within one language in scholarly lingo.
The dictionary definitions do not seem to have that definition limitation, and if you put "translation is a paraphrase" or "paraphrase translation" into Google
you will 500 hits each where all sorts of translations are called paraphrases
in writings.
One interesting article
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/articles/bibletrans.html
discusses what is a paraphrase, and says that paraphrase itself is a "loaded
word"
We can eliminate some confusion by setting aside the loaded word paraphrase for the moment. The real issue seems to be how we determine what merits the title of translation and what doesn't.
However, for the purpose of your question below, I will be using your
definition.
Peter Kirk,
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.
Schmuel
Well, the Complete Jewish Bible Tanach from David Stern simply changed words in the
JPS-1914, (David acknowledged very limited Hebrew expertise). When David discusses
"paraphrase", as in
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/StudyTheBible/InfoJewish.rtf he is using the literalness
of the translation as his definition, not whether it is a rework of an existing text in
the target language.
And apparently the Restoration Scriptures by a group called YATI (Your Arms to Israel) did similarly using the Revised Standard Version. Not surprisingly they are not very straightforward with their description of their methodology, leaving the impression that they did an original translation.
How these two handled the NT I cannot say for certain offhand.
There are others where there is no real scholarship background given, and there have been
paraphrase theories offered by outsiders. One would be the ISR - "Institute of Scriptural
Research" in South Africa version "The Scriptures". The second is well-known, the
New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps this did in fact fully involve
translation from the original languages, but there is at least some uncertainty. I see now that
you mention this below.
btw, James Trimm did something similar with his Hebraic-Roots-Version NT, being
publicized largely through the Internet, while claiming an original translation. This
was a little different, as mostly he didn't even change any vocabulary, prepositions,
conjunctions, punctuation, etc. so his volume qualifies much more as a plagiarism than
a paraphrase. A lot of words were changed to be more "Hebraic", but that is
neither translation or paraphrase, simply substitution (word processor
scan-and-replace).
...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.)
Peter (in later post)
And this is how most English versions have been done, except for Wycliffe's very first one.
Schmuel
Wycliffe could only translate from the NT Vulgate, so that is basically an
independent translation.
(I'm not 100% sure about the Tanach)
Tyndale was the "very first one" on the line of Masoretic Text and TR Bibles.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.