What Is a Paraphrase?

My point isn't about good or bad paraphrases; my point is that there is a difference between a translation and a paraphrase. I gave one definition in my previous post.

 

See posts numbered 56 and 57 of mine,and # 60 of Jim's.

 

The definition I just gave makes my Cockney sample both a translation and a paraphrase. The author is translating from English to Cockney, and is paraphrasing the original words to fit Cockney.

Cheers,

Jim

 

John, I am a Cockney, born in Plaistow, West Ham, East London and under the sound of Bow Bells. Cockney is wot I grew up with.

All the best to you, mate. This has been a most interesting study for me. It made me dust of my books and get back at it. Thanks, and blessings to-day and tomorrow.

Cheerio for now,

Jim

 

I read them. But I don't see any evidence that a translation and paraphrase are the same thing.

It seems that according to JoJ - and I trust what he says - I am in good company with this view.

 

As I have said before :All paraphrases are not of the same quality.There are considerable differences among paraphrases.Do not paint with such a large brush.I know it's easier to be dismissive of all paraphrases as if there are no gradients;but that's not the real world.You are quite wrong to claim that all paraphrases do not use exegesis or minimize the role of exegesis.

 

You insist that a paraphrase can't be considered any form of a translation.Well then,what Bible versions are 'free translations'?If you still maintain that a paraphrase is not any kind of a translation than you must think a 'free translation' is more form-driven.

 

I guess my Brother Rippon and I are left in this thread, but I might add that we are not alone wit authoritative support.

My quotes are from the highest authorities in the field of linguial studies. One was from a textbook teaching how to write; one from The King's English, the chaps who put together the Oxford Dictionary, and the "Bible" of the English language. I shan't list the others, but they were also texts and authorities on the English language. I did not list from any who translate scriptures.

My good Brother John admitted that my Cockney version was a translation, and yet it is a paraphrase of necessity. That's the Cockney language, and the only way we can present it. Hopefully it fits the rules of translation, but it can be rather vague and open to interpretation. Contex is everything in Cockney. For example, "jack" alone has three different meaning. It can mean a "pub", "alone" and a person.......so, I went round Johnny (round the corner) to jack's jack jack (Jack's pub alone)........

I think we will arrive at the same thing if we observe either set of rules; the real meaning of the text, and to my mind that is the important thing.

Cheers,

Jim

 

No,you're wrong.I had said in post #34 :"So when you quote someone who mentions paraphrases it doesn't count as a mention at all.Is that your stance?"

Then you replied with an irrelevancy of :"Forgive me ... buy your own book next time." Your response had nothing to do with what I had said.

I know it's hard for you to be nice to me when you say things 1)which are not true about me 2)have nothing to do with posted comments of mine 3) use a double standard.

 

I think we have taken this thread as far as it will go. We had 4 posters, and all have finished just about where we started.

I did have to dig out a few old books I hadn't looked at in years though. So that is a good thing.

Cheers friends, and thank you for this little diversion.

Jim

 

In post number 25 of JoJ he said :"The paraphrased,even the ones which are actual translations,all claim to be Bibles."

So here he thinks that some paraphrases are indeed translations.

In post #7 JoJ quotes Price quoting an unnamed dictionary:"paraphrase,in this connection,is applied to a free translation."

Hence paraphrases are free translations.

 

Let me repeat the sentence of P&G as to what constitutes a paraphrase:"the statement of the contents of a passage,text,etc.,in the same or another language,without following the original text verbatim."

And I have been insisting based on that weak definition of a paraphrase that all versions are paraphrases.If I am mistaken -- which versions follow the text verbatim?Remember verbatim means using the actual words exactly.

 

JoJ's new term of "micro-paraphrasing" means "paraphrasing of a word,phrase or sentence". I had said that based on that meaning the practice is pervasive in form-driven Bible versions.He disagreed saying that micro-paraphrasing is used sometimes,but not pervasively.Well,I think a lot of mini-paraphrasing is pretty widespread in the ESV for instance.If we took a single book of the Bible like Titus for example I think we would discover a number of instances of JoJ's m-p going on.I haven't looked at Titus before stating this.Pick any book you'd like --preferably a New Testament one.Titus has three chapters -- 46 verses.I would think that one could find several cases of entire phrases -- not just individual words that fall into his definition of M-P.And if this M/P occurs several times -- I think that would be a good indicator that the practice is pervasive in the ESV Bible.

 

Ya' think?

But I will add one more little bit.

To 'paraphrase' the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it."

Ed

 

To claim that the use of paraphrase is substandard is to fly in the face of Scripture itself.Jesus and the Apostles paraphrased a good deal of Old Testament passages.To call these cases merely dynamic would be a stretch.