What Is a Paraphrase?

[Jim1999]

Do either of you chaps have a copy of Fowler's The King's English in yor library? Fowlers are the compilers of the Oxford Dictionary

This book is the absolute authority on the English language.

A quick definition of metaphor here is: "Strictly speaking, a metaphor occurs as often as we take a word out of its original sphere and apply it in new circumstances." It then goes on to talk about the various situations where metaphors are used,,I don't feel up to typing 3 pages (grin)...This book dates back to 1906, but still holds true, I believe.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jim1999]

While I am at the library, I dug up an old Canadian Grade 12 and 13 English text book written by a personal friend who also later pastored a Baptist Church. He says, about metaphors: "Metaphor is implied comparison, or imaginative identification. There are no words of comparison such as "like" or "as". The two things that are compared are fused into one by the energy of the imagination and the intensity of the emotion. It (metaphor) is the most important and the commonest of all figures of speech..." It also goes on for a page or two.

Cheers,

Jim

Learning to Write by E. H. Winter, but originally written by Reed Smith

 

[John of Japan]

Do either of you chaps have a copy of Fowler's The King's English in yor library? Fowlers are the compilers of the Oxford Dictionary

This book is the absolute authority on the English language.

A quick definition of metaphor here is: "Strictly speaking, a metaphor occurs as often as we take a word out of its original sphere and apply it in new circumstances." It then goes on to talk about the various situations where metaphors are used,,I don't feel up to typing 3 pages (grin)...This book dates back to 1906, but still holds true, I believe.

Cheers,

Jim

I don't have that one, but it sounds like a great resource!

 

[John of Japan]

While I am at the library, I dug up an old Canadian Grade 12 and 13 English text book written by a personal friend who also later pastored a Baptist Church. He says, about metaphors: "Metaphor is implied comparison, or imaginative identification. There are no words of comparison such as "like" or "as". The two things that are compared are fused into one by the energy of the imagination and the intensity of the emotion. It (metaphor) is the most important and the commonest of all figures of speech..." It also goes on for a page or two.

Cheers,

Jim

Learning to Write by E. H. Winter, but originally written by Reed Smith

Figures of speech can indeed be hard to translate, and on occasion micro-paraphrasing is called for.

 

[John of Japan]

The Harm of Macro-Paraphrasing​

Is there any harm to macro-paraphrasing the Bible? How can it hurt? Let me say that macro-paraphrasing—approaching the Bible with a translation philosophy of paraphrase—would not be harmful in my view if it were relegated completely to the area of commentary. That is what it is, commentary. No more, no less. Please note the following quotes on this.

On private translations of the NT: “Others have been excessively idiomatic, or unduly free with their use of paraphrase, even to the extent of adding words, phrases and sentences to aid in clarifying the meaning of the text.” Charles B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People, Publisher’s Preface, p. 5. Chicago: Moody Press, 1937.

“These versions giving the literal rendering as they do, constitute a court of appeal in matters of faith, the only possible one. It is also the only form of translation about which there can be anything like the general agreement. No expanded, explanatory translation could be final, as is evidenced by the variety of opinions as to the interpretation of many passages in the Epistles. This form of translation is the only one for which permanent acceptance could reasonably be expected.” Arthur S. Way, The Letters of Saint Paul and Hebrews, Preface, p. ix. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1950).

But notice. The paraphrased versions, even the ones which are actual translations, all claim to be Bibles. They don’t say they are commentaries or interpretations of the Bible, they say they are Bibles!

Note that even a well-known secular scholar realizes the harm of paraphrasing to this degree. According to Lawrence Vanuti in The Translation Studies Reader (2nd ed., p. 18), “Paraphrase falls short of maintaining a semantic correspondence and is actually transformative.”

What Venuti means is that macro-paraphrase—paraphrase as a method rather than a tool—changes the meaning of the text to fit the subjective opinion of the writer or translator. And to one who believes in verbal-plenary inspiration as I do, this is extremely dangerous! Why? Because it puts human opinion right in there with Scripture not just when it is necessary to interpret in order to translate (which is not that often, in my experience), but all the time!

Note the following Scriptures:

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command” (Deut. 4:2).

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6)

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19).

 

[Rippon]

Paraphrases which claim to be Bibles are,in fact,Bibles!In your quest for a particular mythod of translation do not denigrate the Word of God.There have been many paraphrases in Church history which were God-honoring and needful by the Body of Christ.

Instead of blanket condemnation of paraphrases, why don't you go on a case-by-case basis?There are some strict so-called "word-for-word versions which make the meaning of texts unclear when the author intended no such ambiguity.

 

[John of Japan]

Paraphrases which claim to be Bibles are,in fact,Bibles!In your quest for a particular mythod of translation do not denigrate the Word of God.There have been many paraphrases in Church history which were God-honoring and needful by the Body of Christ.

This from the guy who attacks literal versions every chance he gets! Paraphrases are fine, but formal equivalence is always wrong, is that it?

Instead of blanket condemnation of paraphrases, why don't you go on a case-by-case basis?There are some strict so-called "word-for-word versions which make the meaning of texts unclear when the author intended no such ambiguity.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Rippon]

This from the guy who attacks literal versions every chance he gets! Paraphrases are fine, but formal equivalence is always wrong, is that it?

Now you're sounding like a KJVO'er. I"attack literal versions"?! I do not "attack" them anymore than I give criticisms of KJV renderings.

Where did I even hint that I thought formal versions were "always wrong"?

From reading your impassioned reaction it looks as though you haven't read my post too well.You would not be qualified to render a paraphrase of my words.:laugh:

You are entitled to your opinion.

So you think it's completely unreasonable on my part to suggest that instead of condemning paraphrases altogether -- you should take particular passages on a case-by-case basis?

 

[John of Japan]

Now you're sounding like a KJVO'er. I"attack literal versions"?! I do not "attack" them anymore than I give criticisms of KJV renderings.

Were did I even hint that I thought formal versions were "always wrong"?

From reading your impassioned reaction it looks as though you haven't read my post too well.You would not be qualified to render a paraphrase of my words.:laugh:

In every contact about translation methods I've had with you on the BB where a literal method has been mentioned, you've denigrated the literal methods. You did so again on this thread.

So you think it's completely unreasonable on my part to suggest that instead of condemning paraphrases altogether -- you should take particular passages on a case-by-case basis?

Come now, I believe you've been paying better attention than that. This whole thread has been about what I believe is wrong with the macro-paraphrasing method of Scripture. If I start into individual readings in different paraphrase versions, it will take forever! I may do a little bit of that, I haven't decided, but the thread is primarily about the translation method. In fact, I really don't think I've mentioned a single paraphrase version by name on this thread! If I do get into it, I'll go to work on the Japanese Gendaiyaku or Libingu Baiburu so you Americans and others don't get your suspenders in a knot.

 

[Rippon]

In every contact about translation methods I've had with you on the BB where a literal method has been mentioned, you've denigrated the literal methods. You did so again on this thread.

You are into hyperbolic language;aren't you?

I have tried to put the literal method into perspective in past threads.I have never denigrated the literal method on this thread even once.Don't say things which aren't true.

Come now, I believe you've been paying better attention than that. This whole thread has been about what I believe is wrong with the macro-paraphrasing method of Scripture. If I start into individual readings in different paraphrase versions, it will take forever! I may do a little bit of that, I haven't decided, but the thread is primarily about the translation method.

I said take things on a case-by-case basis.This is the third time I have said this.I am not suggesting that you have to cover the entire text of a paraphrase.You are really misunderstanding even simple things.

In fact, I really don't think I've mentioned a single paraphrase version by name on this thread! If I do get into it, I'll go to work on the Japanese Gendaiyaku or Libingu Baiburu so you Americans and others don't get your suspenders in a knot.

Aside from multiple references to the Living Bible you have mentioned the Chinese Bible (Union Version) and the Jerusalem Bible.

 

[John of Japan]

You are into hyperbolic language;aren't you?

I have tried to put the literal method into perspective in past threads.I have never denigrated the literal method on this thread even once.Don't say things which aren't true.

Post #26.

Aside from multiple references to the Living Bible you have mentioned the Chinese Bible (Union Version) and the Jerusalem Bible.

I guess I was wrong. You are not paying attention after all. I quoted Dr. Price at your request, and he mentioned the Living Bible and Jerusalem Bible, then you mentioned the Jerusalem Bible. I have not mentioned the Living Bible a single time, much less multiple times, except in the quote by Dr. Price.

As for the Chinese Union Version, it is not a paraphrase version. I only mentioned a micro-paraphrase of one phrase. So once again, I've not mentioned a single paraphrase version by name in this thread, except for your benefit in the quote by Dr. Price.

Now I hope we can stop the sniping at each other, and maybe tomorrow I can deal with some particular errors of paraphrase versions which you want.

 

[Rippon]

I've quoted from the following book before on an old thread.The article is entitled Paraphrases.It is written by Robert G. Bratcher.I regard him as a theological liberal.I completely denounce some statements he made back in 1981.He's also responsible for Today's English Version.However,he has some interesting things to say in The Oxford Essential Guide to Ideas &Issues of the Bible.I'll relate portions of his article.

Paraphrase is a restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words,often to clarify meaning...What is sometimes called "paraphrase" in Bible translation is actually a legitimate and necessary device to represent the meaning clearly and faithfully in the target language.As C.H.Dodd noted,the line between translation and paraphrase is a fine one:"But if the best commentary is a good translation,it is also true that every intelligent translation is in a sense a paraphrase."...
The earliest scriptures in English,the oral renditions of Caedmon (seventh century) and the written works of Aelfric (ca.1000),were paraphrases.In the sixteenth century,several paraphrases were produced.Jan van den Campen did a Latin paraphrase of the Psalms in 1532,which was translated into English in 1535 (perhaps by Coverdale).The English version of Erasmus's New Testament Paraphrase appeared in 1549.He begins Romans as follows:"I am Paul,though formerly Saul,that is,I have become peaceful,though formerly restless,until recently subject to the law of Moses,now freed from Moses,I have been made a servant of Jesus Christ."In 1653 Henry Hammond,president of Magdalen College,Oxford,produced a paraphrase of the New Testament,which was printed alongside the King James Version.


Paraphrases of biblical texts,responsibly made,are a legitimate way of making the meaning of the text clearer to the reader... (pages 387,388)

 

[Rippon]

There are some strict so-called "word-for-word versions which make the meaning of texts unclear when the author intended no such ambiguity.

This quote of mine (post#26) supposedly represents an occasion where I denigrated the literal method according to JoJ.You have to better than that.There is no denigration found there.Instead there is a legitimate gripe.

Suppose we apply the same standard to your take on functionally equivalent versions.How would you fare with the charge that you have denigrated that method?

 

[Rippon]

I guess I was wrong. You are not paying attention after all. I quoted Dr. Price at your request, and he mentioned the Living Bible and Jerusalem Bible, then you mentioned the Jerusalem Bible. I have not mentioned the Living Bible a single time, much less multiple times, except in the quote by Dr. Price.

So when you quote someone who mentions paraphrases it doesn't count as a mention at all.Is that your stance?

I never mentioned or quoted anyone mentioning the Jerusalem Bible.I simply quoted from the New Jerusalem Bible.

In post #14 of yours you stated the following:"A case in point is that in paraphrasing The Living Bible Ken Taylor didn't even go to the Greek and Hebrew,but just used the ASV."So you are wrong again JoJ.

So once again, I've not mentioned a single paraphrase version by name in this thread, except for your benefit in the quote by Dr. Price.

As I have demonstrated -- you are wrong.

 

[John of Japan]

So when you quote someone who mentions paraphrases it doesn't count as a mention at all.Is that your stance?

Forgive me--for doing you a favor. I thought you would be grateful, but you don't even say thank you for the work I went to in scanning in and correcting a lengthy passage from Price. Buy your own book next time.

In post #14 of yours you stated the following:"A case in point is that in paraphrasing The Living Bible Ken Taylor didn't even go to the Greek and Hebrew,but just used the ASV."So you are wrong again JoJ.

As I have demonstrated -- you are wrong.

You are correct. I am wrong. I mentioned it once.

 

[John of Japan]

This quote of mine (post#26) supposedly represents an occasion where I denigrated the literal method according to JoJ.You have to better than that.There is no denigration found there.Instead there is a legitimate gripe.

Suppose we apply the same standard to your take on functionally equivalent versions.How would you fare with the charge that you have denigrated that method?

Yes. I do oppose that method. I admit it. If that be denigration, so be it. Stay tuned for a possible thread on how Nida was an existentialist and got his semantics from that godless philosophy.

 

[Jim1999]

You lads are getting quite technical. Most of us just call all copies of the Bible in a different fashion, a "translation".

In a Brit newspaper, the title reads,,,Book translates the Bible into Cockney slang....The book is titled The Bible in Cockney. It was written to attract the young people in East London.

"And so Jesus made a Jim Skinner for 5,000 geezers with just five loaves of Uncle Fred and two Lillian Gish.

Noah built a bloomin' massive nanny...then David, who killed that massive geezer Goliath with a slingshot.

Now, Jim is going johnny to jack's jack, until the tower chimes three, or dogbone rings and trouble wants me 'ome to take teapot lids up apples to visit Uncle Ted...

Just thought I would throw this one post in to calm you lads down a bit.......*smile*

I am learning quite a bit. Keep it up. Sure beats knocking everyone about on t' Board.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[John of Japan]

You lads are getting quite technical. Most of us just call all copies of the Bible in a different fashion, a "translation".

In a Brit newspaper, the title reads,,,Book translates the Bible into Cockney slang....The book is titled The Bible in Cockney. It was written to attract the young people in East London.

"And so Jesus made a Jim Skinner for 5,000 geezers with just five loaves of Uncle Fred and two Lillian Gish.

Noah built a bloomin' massive nanny...then David, who killed that massive geezer Goliath with a slingshot.

Now, Jim is going johnny to jack's jack, until the tower chimes three, or dogbone rings and trouble wants me 'ome to take teapot lids up apples to visit Uncle Ted...

Just thought I would throw this one post in to calm you lads down a bit.......*smile*

I am learning quite a bit. Keep it up. Sure beats knocking everyone about on t' Board.

Cheers,

Jim

Thanks for the contributions, Brother Jim. You just made me want to go out and buy The Bible in Cockney. I love the sound of Cockney.

I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion. There is a similar discussion in the secular field of translation studies. The debate there is over whether or not a translation of a literary work can be considered a completely new literary work, or whether the translator should be invisible (the traditional view).

 

[John of Japan]

I've quoted from the following book before on an old thread.The article is entitled Paraphrases.It is written by Robert G. Bratcher.I regard him as a theological liberal.I completely denounce some statements he made back in 1981.He's also responsible for Today's English Version.However,he has some interesting things to say in The Oxford Essential Guide to Ideas &Issues of the Bible.I'll relate portions of his article.

Paraphrase is a restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words,often to clarify meaning...What is sometimes called "paraphrase" in Bible translation is actually a legitimate and necessary device to represent the meaning clearly and faithfully in the target language.As C.H.Dodd noted,the line between translation and paraphrase is a fine one:"But if the best commentary is a good translation,it is also true that every intelligent translation is in a sense a paraphrase."...
The earliest scriptures in English,the oral renditions of Caedmon (seventh century) and the written works of Aelfric (ca.1000),were paraphrases.In the sixteenth century,several paraphrases were produced.Jan van den Campen did a Latin paraphrase of the Psalms in 1532,which was translated into English in 1535 (perhaps by Coverdale).The English version of Erasmus's New Testament Paraphrase appeared in 1549.He begins Romans as follows:"I am Paul,though formerly Saul,that is,I have become peaceful,though formerly restless,until recently subject to the law of Moses,now freed from Moses,I have been made a servant of Jesus Christ."In 1653 Henry Hammond,president of Magdalen College,Oxford,produced a paraphrase of the New Testament,which was printed alongside the King James Version.


Paraphrases of biblical texts,responsibly made,are a legitimate way of making the meaning of the text clearer to the reader... (pages 387,388)

Ah, yes. Robert Bratcher: very liberal; recruited by Eugene Nida to work in the Translations Department of the American Bible Society; lead translator of the notorious TEV/GNB (or whatever they call it nowadays), which was the first complete translation done with the DE method, and then used as a model by the ABS for DE translations around the world. But I’ll respond anyway.

Concerning Caedmon: “Its character and form give it no claim to be regarded as a translation of the Bible.” (The Ancestry of Our English Bible, by Ira Maurice Price, p. 208.)

Concerning Aelfric, there are very few mss. extant, including one in Oxford and one in the British Museum. It would be very hard even for Bratcher to make this judgment about the whole version. Judging from one passage, though, I think Bratcher is wrong when he says Aelfric is a paraphrase. Aelfric is actually word-for-word. Compare the following to a literal English translation:

“Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, Si þin nama gehalgod. to becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. soþlice” (Matthew 6:9-13).

Concerning the Psalter of Jan van den Campen, there is a long tradition of liturgical readings that are more or less paraphrases going back to the early church. I don’t consider a Psalter to be historical support for modern macro-paraphrase versions being called Bibles.

Now with Erasmus, I was able to check it out on Google books. This is so obviously an interpretation/commentary, I don’t know how it is possible to call it a translation. Surely Erasmus himself didn’t consider it a translation. He was too good a linguist for that! If he did consider it a translation, I’d like to see a quote on that from Erasmus himself. Otherwise it’s just speculation.


At any rate, what I am objecting to primarily is macro-paraphrases being called a Bible. They should be called interpretations or commentaries, not Bibles. So it doesn’t matter how many paraphrases there have been in church history. In order for that point to be valid, any opponent in this debate must prove that the church considered paraphrases to be real Bibles in church history before the 20th century.

 

[Marcia]

Paraphrases which claim to be Bibles are,in fact,Bibles!In your quest for a particular mythod of translation do not denigrate the Word of God.There have been many paraphrases in Church history which were God-honoring and needful by the Body of Christ.

I do not regard paraphrased versions of the Bible as God's word. I realize there cannot always be one-on-one translation in regular translations but there is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase.

Isn't a paraphrase taking something already written and putting into your own words? That is not translation.

I cannot get into technicalities like JoJ - after all, he is a translator and sure knows more about that stuff. But the difference between a translation and a paraphrase seems clear to me.