On the "What constitutes a valid translation?" thread, I gave the following definition of a paraphrase: I disagreed strongly with what Rippon then said: My goal on this thread is not to chastise Rippon. I have to say he does quite well for an admitted amateur. He appears to have read much on the subject of Bible translation, and I commend him for that. My goal is to clarify what Pei and Gaynor meant, and to further define what paraphrase is, giving quotes from other linguists, including Dynamic Equivalence (DE) advocates. First of all, where I think Rippon misunderstood Pei/Gaynor is in the term "context." Here is how Pei/Gaynor define context: In other words, paraphrasing looks at the text as primarily a unit of sentences, not single words and structures. The translator then rewords the source text in his own words and syntax without much regard to the grammar of the original document. This makes paraphrasing more subjective (often much more) than literal methods, since it makes the translator the authority rather than the text. DE (or functional equivalence if you must, though the DE term is embedded even in the scholarly discussion), whatever else its drawbacks may be, at least aims at basing the translation on exegesis. For this reason, some translation theorists make paraphrase a third method after word-for-word and sense-for-sense. (For an example see Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation, James Price, pp. 16-17.) More to come.