What Is a Paraphrase?

[Rippon]

I do not regard paraphrased versions of the Bible as God's word.

Now that's a pity.That's all some had in Church History.

But the difference between a translation and a paraphrase seems clear to me.

Well leave it to me to fog up your glasses.What do you do with paraphrases which are indeed translated from the original languages?

 

[Marcia]

Now that's a pity.That's all some had in Church History.

I know that also in some periods, no one had the Bible except a few priests but that does not make paraphrases the same as translations, assuming that is what they were.

Well leave it to me to fog up your glasses.What do you do with paraphrases which are indeed translated from the original languages

They are still paraphrases.

(wiping fog from glasses), :wavey:
Marcia

 

[Rippon]

I know that also in some periods, no one had the Bible except a few priests but that does not make paraphrases the same as translations, assuming that is what they were.

Paraphrases are not the same as other forms of translations -- yet they are nevertheless translations.

They are still paraphrases.

We don't seem to be getting anywhere.Yes,they are still paraphrases.And they are still the Word of God.

 

[John of Japan]

Now that's a pity.That's all some had in Church History.

Like who? Proof?

 

[John of Japan]

Paraphrases are not the same as other forms of translations -- yet they are nevertheless translations.

Pei and Gaynor disagree with you:
"translate: To render a word of text written in one language into another language, retaining the full and correct meaning of the word or text in the other language" (Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 219).

For a more recent definition, try Susan Bassnett's excellent textbook (3rd edition, 2002): "What is generally understood as translation involvess the rendering of a source language (SL) text into the target language (TL) so as to ensure that (1) the surface meaning of the two will be approximately similar and (2) the structures of the SL will be preserved as closely as possible but not so closely that the TL structures will be seriously distored" (Translation Studies, p. 11).

Bassnett's definition rules out paraphrasing because she uses the term "surface meaning"--a reference to transformational grammar--as opposed to "deep meaning."

So, can you find a linguist or professional translator who agrees with your opinion that a paraphrase is a translation?

 

[Rippon]

A paraphrase is a type of translation. A paraphrase is a free translation. A paraphrase is still transferring meaning -- which all translations are supposed to do.

 

[Rippon]

Now that's a pity.That's all some had in Church History.

This is where I was saying that some in Church History relied on Bible paraphrases.

In the 7th century Caedmon paraphrased most of the Bible in the language of the ordinary person.

Around 1000 Aelfric translated a lot of the Bible into an idiomatic form.

The Venerable Bede (in the early 8th century)used paraphrase when he translated small sections of the Bible.

Everyone did not have access to a copy of a Vulgate.Many could not even read Latin.These paraphrases proved valuable to the common person.

 

[John of Japan]

This is where I was saying that some in Church History relied on Bible paraphrases.

In the 7th century Caedmon paraphrased most of the Bible in the language of the ordinary person.

Around 1000 Aelfric translated a lot of the Bible into an idiomatic form.

The Venerable Bede (in the early 8th century)used paraphrase when he translated small sections of the Bible.

Everyone did not have access to a copy of a Vulgate.Many could not even read Latin.These paraphrases proved valuable to the common person.

I guess you didn't read my post where I debunked Bratcher.

 

[John of Japan]

A paraphrase is a type of translation. A paraphrase is a free translation. A paraphrase is still transferring meaning -- which all translations are supposed to do.

Please don't be offended, but this is still only your opinion. I'm a linguist, but I'm not even giving my own opinion about this. I'm quoting recognized, widely known scholars who give definitions of translations that exclude paraphrase. You're entirely welcome to your opinion, but don't expect it to carry any authority.

 

[John of Japan]

Rippon has been asking for me to look at some actual passages from a paraphrase. Here are some I’ve back-translated into English from the Gendaiyaku, paraphrased by a well-known Japanese pastor named Reiji Oyama.

John 3:16:
「神は、そのひとり子でいますイエス・キリストをこの世に遣わされ、十字架上で私たちの罪の身代わりとして死なせるほどに、私たちを愛してくださった。それは、イエス・キリストを信じる人が誰であろうと、滅びること が泣く、救われるためなのである。」
"God sent his only Son Jesus Christ to this world, and to the extent that he made his Son die on the cross in the place of our sin, God loved us. So, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will not perish, but will be saved."

There are so many mistakes in this paraphrase that it is hard to know where to begin! He definitely is not going directly from the Greek. In the Japanese he has added thirteen words and changed two. And that isn’t even looking at the grammar.

John 1:1—
「まだ、この世界も何もなかった時、すでにキリストは存在しておられた。キリストは神といっしょにおられ、また神ご自身であられた。」
“When there was nothing at all in this world, Christ already existed. Christ was with God, and was God himself.”

He has substituted “Christ” for “Word,” but the term “Word” is vital in this passage in order to get across the divine Author’s intended meaning. Also, he paraphrased “In the beginning” in such a way that the connection with Gen. 1:1 is completely lost. Here is the KJV, of course: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:2—
「このように、キリストは神ご自身であられながら、唯一の神のうちにいますもう一つの人格があって、父と子と聖霊とである。キリストは子でいます。」
“In this way, while Christ is God himself, within the unique God he is another person, there being the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Christ is the Son.”

Boy has he turned this around to his own understanding, and paraphrased badly. Compare my back translation with 29 words to the KJV with only 8 words: “The same was in the beginning with God.” I’ll leave it to you, gentle reader, to evaluate this verse.

 

[Rippon]

Boy has he turned this around to his own understanding, and paraphrased badly.

All paraphrases are not created equally.Mr.Oyama's renderings are sub-standard.So what?There are a number of poor wordings in so-called formal equivalent versions too.

 

[Rippon]

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.

The above had absolutely nothing to do with anything I had posted.

 

[EdSutton]

Rippon has been asking for me to look at some actual passages from a paraphrase. Here are some I’ve back-translated into English from the Gendaiyaku, paraphrased by a well-known Japanese pastor named Reiji Oyama.

John 3:16:
「神は、そのひとり子でいますイエス・キリストをこの世に遣わされ、十字架上で私たちの罪の身代わりとして死なせるほどに、私たちを愛してくださった。それは、イエス・キリストを信じる人が誰であろうと、滅びること が泣く、救われるためなのである。」
"God sent his only Son Jesus Christ to this world, and to the extent that he made his Son die on the cross in the place of our sin, God loved us. So, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will not perish, but will be saved."

There are so many mistakes in this paraphrase that it is hard to know where to begin! He definitely is not going directly from the Greek. In the Japanese he has added thirteen words and changed two. And that isn’t even looking at the grammar.

John 1:1—
「まだ、この世界も何もなかった時、すでにキリストは存在しておられた。キリストは神といっしょにおられ、また神ご自身であられた。」
“When there was nothing at all in this world, Christ already existed. Christ was with God, and was God himself.”

He has substituted “Christ” for “Word,” but the term “Word” is vital in this passage in order to get across the divine Author’s intended meaning. Also, he paraphrased “In the beginning” in such a way that the connection with Gen. 1:1 is completely lost. Here is the KJV, of course: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:2—
「このように、キリストは神ご自身であられながら、唯一の神のうちにいますもう一つの人格があって、父と子と聖霊とである。キリストは子でいます。」
“In this way, while Christ is God himself, within the unique God he is another person, there being the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Christ is the Son.”

Boy has he turned this around to his own understanding, and paraphrased badly. Compare my back translation with 29 words to the KJV with only 8 words: “The same was in the beginning with God.” I’ll leave it to you, gentle reader, to evaluate this verse.

Oyama?? Isn't he the guy running for President of the United States??

Sorry, That one was just too good to pass up! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Rippon]

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.)

You have not proven that it was not a paraphrase.Since you don't regard paraphrases as any form of a translation and Ira Price claims it's not the latter -- I guess it's a paraphrase after all!

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.

You say it would be hard for Dr.Bratcher to make the judgment that Aelfric's entire version is a paraphrase.Then you make the judgment from the rendering of a single passage that Dr.Bratcher is wrong?!Something's amiss about your logic.

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.

Thank you for agreeing with me on that score!

I don’t consider a Psalter to be historical support for modern macro-paraphrase versions being called Bibles.

Perhaps you need to reconsider your rash statment.

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.

Again,you are really agreeing with me though unaware of the fact.Since you think paraphrases are just "interpretation/commentary" and not translations at all --you have proven my point.

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.

There you go again.

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.

I had already cited Dr.Henry Hammond's Paraphrased New Testament(1653).It had a rather scholarly reputation.Dr.Gill,Dr.Poole and Matthew Henry all cited it approvingly as I recall.Many others probably did as well.BTW,Dr.Hammond was an Arminian but that didn't stop these men from recognizing the scholarship behind Hammond's work.

George Abbott (1603-1648) had Job Paraphrased.

Richard Baxter had a paraphrase of the Psalms.

James Merrick had Psalms Paraphrased In English Verse back in 1765.

According to Curt Daniel Daniel Whitby and Philip Doddridge had Bible paraphrases.

B.H.Carroll released An Interpretation of the English Bible.It had a great deal of paraphrase.

The list could seemingly go on for quite a while of significant Bible paraphrases before the 20th century.And lest you object on the ground that these are cases wherein the entire canon was not put out --would you deny the natives of non-English-speaking nations the right to call their small collection of books from the Scripture not really the Bible?!

John Lightfoot (1602-1675) had a paraphrased New Testament Commentary.

Thomas Boston (1676-1732) had a paraphrase on the book of Galatians.

 

[Jim1999]

Gentlemen. Take my examples from the Cockney Bible. Would they be a paraphrase or translation of the English Bible?

"and so Jesus made a Jim Skinner for 5000 geezers with just five loaves of Uncle Fred and two Lillian Gish..."

The Brit newspaper says, "Seeking to bring the Bible to those who don't usually read it, a London religious education teacher has 'translated' some of the best-known biblical tales into the colourful language of East London for the first time."

It was deemed to be a translation and not a paraphrase, or, if it was a paraphrase it was deemed to be a translation.

Cheers

Jim

 

[Rippon]

Commenting And Commentaries C.H.S.

Upon the New Testament,Philip Doddridge's Expositor is worthy of a far more extensive reading than it is nowadays accorded to it.It is all in the form of a paraphrase,with the text in italics;a mode of treatment far from satisfactory as a rule,but exceedingly well carried out in this instance.The notes are very good,and reveal the thorough scholar.Our Authorized Version is placed in the margin,and a new translation is the paraphrase. (p.19)


Did you get that?A new translation is the paraphrase.IOW,a paraphrase is still a translation.

 

[Rippon]

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."...



Paraphrases of biblical texts,responsibly made,are a legitimate way of making the meaning of the text clearer to the reader...

Bratcher and Dodd though far too liberal in their theology are accomplished linguists/scholars.You may not like them any more than you do Nida -- but these are men who have given their take on what constitutes a paraphrase.

You must have missed these quotes in your haste.

 

[Marcia]

A paraphrase is a type of translation. A paraphrase is a free translation. A paraphrase is still transferring meaning -- which all translations are supposed to do.

Well, that's not what I've learned. A paraphrase is a rendering of words but not a translation.

A translation looks at each word and tries to translate each word as much as possible into another language; some are looser than others. But a paraphrase is re-wording statements, either into the same language or another language.

A translation tries to express, as close as possible, the exact meaning of the original language. In contrast, a paraphrase tends to contain more of the viewpoint of its author - including his opinion, in difficult or ambiguous passages. Because of this, a paraphrase tends to be less accurate than a translation, and is not the best choice for a serious study of the Bible. (It may even be based on an already-made translation, rather than on copies of the original manuscripts.)
Source
http://www.journal33.org/bible/html/engltran.htm

 

[Rippon]

As I have said before Marcia : All paraphrases are not created equal.They run the gamut of reliability.Some are very poor.Others outclass many form-driven versions.You have to take a given rendering from a paraphrase on a case-by-case basis.They are not one monolithic entity.

 

[Jim1999]

A leading English textbook on writing has this to say about paraphrasing:

"To paraphrase is to restate the thought of a selection more simply and clearly, TO TRANSLATE, as it were, something likely to be difficult and involved into language that is readily understandable.

It goes on:

A good paraphrase has three essentials:

1. It must be clear, definite, and easy to understand.

2. It must containt all the thought in the original passage.

3. It must not contain any thought that is not in the original.

This seems to rule out one's own determination of what one thinks the writing is saying.

Cheers,

Jim

Beware,,you are making get my old English books down from the shelves and the dust is killing me....lol