[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Paraphrases vs. Translation
With respect to the "Living Bible," it did indeed have its origins in Ken
Taylor'' (not "Gardner") efforts to make the Bible comprehensible. Since he
was recasting an English version into another English way of saying things, I
think this may justifiably be called a paraphrase rather than a translation,
which moves from one language to a different one.
But I don't think it impossible to distinguish paraphrase from translation even
if they are both done from an original language into another. I seem to
recall F.F. Bruce producing a "paraphrase" of the Pauline epistles some time
back which attempted to clarify ambiguities and express Paul's thought in terms
of what he would have said if he were addressing our own time and culture (and
language, of course). Translations leave the task of spanning the time and
culture gap to the reader, no? Just because we cannot draw a precise line of
definition between them doesn't mean there is no distinction.
By the way, the staff at Tyndale House publishers are apparently aware of some
of the deficiencies of their "paraphrase"/translation, and the revision
committee which has been mentioned on this forum comprises some top-notch
scholars.
***************************************************************************
** Dan G. McCartney | I'net: DMCCARTNEY@HSLC.ORG **
** Assoc. Prof. of NT | WTS: 215 887 5511 **
** Westminster Theol Seminary | Office: 215 572 3818 **
** Box 27009, Chestnut Hill | Fax: 215 887 5404 **
** Philadelphia, PA 19090 | Home: 215 659 7854 **
** **
***************************************************************************
Follow-Ups: