What Is a Paraphrase?

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

 

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

 

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).

 

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

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

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.

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.

 

Post #26.

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.

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.