# At what point does a translation become a paraphrase?



## J. Dean (May 23, 2012)

Obviously we cannot do a 100 percent wooden translation from Hebrew or Greek to English; for that matter we cannot do this with any language, as my time as a Spanish learner and teacher has taught me. But at what point do you say that the translation is a paraphrase vs. a literal rendering (which in truth no rendering is PERFECTLY literal, as languages do not permit this in translation, as I indicated earlier).

What say you?


----------



## rbcbob (May 23, 2012)

I would suggest that it is at the point that the middle-man picks up his pen, so to speak. If he sets out to "restate the text, passage or work giving the meaning in another form" (Webster @ paraphrase) then he has not set out to translate but give the meaning in another form.


----------



## jogri17 (May 23, 2012)

All translation is paraphrase to some extent. I learned this having learned French and watching translations done by the best of the best for politicians on the news.... sometimes they hit it brilliantine other times not so well. Sometimes word for word is called for in translation, other times you have to paraphrase if idiomatic expressions are used. In that case paraphrase is the best way to treat the text. This is why the Westminster Standards demand that the original languages be the basis for all theological authority, though at the same time that the Bible be translated into all vulgar tongues. In my opinion a translation passes into the realm of unacceptable and intollerable when they 1. avoid starting out with the original languages with the translation and 2. giving priority to the comprehension of the modern reader over the intention of the original authors of the text.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 23, 2012)

J. (Dean said:


> which in truth no rendering is PERFECTLY literal, as languages do not permit this in translation, as I indicated earlier)



Are you saying that God has not permitted us to understand each other or Himself through the ages?


----------



## Jake (May 23, 2012)

It's obviously a process, and it is hard to say when the line has been crossed. Some preachers who hold to inspiration and inerrancy will use the NLT, a text which is paraphrasic in many places. But then again, even the NASB uses paraphrases for certain phrases. We can say that certain translations are more literal. An interlinear would be the closest one could get, followed by translations like Young's Literal Translation. Then on the other end you have efforts where someone sits down with an English Bible and rewrites it into English again, like the Living Bible.

I think a Bible begins falling into the paraphrasic category in general when the translators care more about getting the general meaning of larger blocks of text at a time. Efforts that start out with the mindset of preserving thoughts or ideas rather than resting in God's inspiration of every word and far more likely to fall into the trap of being a paraphrase.


----------



## J. Dean (May 24, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> J. (Dean said:
> 
> 
> > which in truth no rendering is PERFECTLY literal, as languages do not permit this in translation, as I indicated earlier)
> ...



It's not a question of understanding; pretty much every good Bible translation captures the essence of the original autographs. Heck, even the Living "Bible" (much as I prefer to avoid it) does a good job with some of its passages. It's a question of asserting at what point a translation turns into a paraphrase.


----------

