1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What Is a Paraphrase?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, Oct 27, 2008.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 5
  1. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Now that's a pity.That's all some had in Church History.


    Well leave it to me to fog up your glasses.What do you do with paraphrases which are indeed translated from the original languages?
     
    #41 Rippon, Oct 30, 2008
  2. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1

    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.

    They are still paraphrases.

    (wiping fog from glasses), :wavey:
    Marcia
     
    #42 Marcia, Oct 30, 2008
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Paraphrases are not the same as other forms of translations -- yet they are nevertheless translations.


    We don't seem to be getting anywhere.Yes,they are still paraphrases.And they are still the Word of God.
     
    #43 Rippon, Oct 31, 2008
  4. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Like who? Proof?
     
    #44 John of Japan, Oct 31, 2008
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
    #45 John of Japan, Oct 31, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2008
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #46 Rippon, Oct 31, 2008
  7. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #47 Rippon, Oct 31, 2008
  8. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I guess you didn't read my post where I debunked Bratcher.
     
    #48 John of Japan, Oct 31, 2008
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #49 John of Japan, Oct 31, 2008
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,356
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #50 John of Japan, Oct 31, 2008
  11. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #51 Rippon, Oct 31, 2008
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The above had absolutely nothing to do with anything I had posted.
     
    #52 Rippon, Oct 31, 2008
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
    #53 EdSutton, Oct 31, 2008
  14. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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!

    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.


    Thank you for agreeing with me on that score!


    Perhaps you need to reconsider your rash statment.


    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.


    There you go again.


    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.
     
    #54 Rippon, Oct 31, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2008
  15. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    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
     
    #55 Jim1999, Oct 31, 2008
  16. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #56 Rippon, Oct 31, 2008
  17. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #57 Rippon, Oct 31, 2008
  18. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    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
     
    #58 Marcia, Oct 31, 2008
  19. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #59 Rippon, Oct 31, 2008
  20. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    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
     
    #60 Jim1999, Oct 31, 2008
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 5
Loading...