What Makes a Bible Version a Paraphrase?

[Hidden In Him]

I ask, because there are new versions coming out these days that define themselves as translations when they are in fact paraphrases in my opinion. But the term is defined differently by different sources. Some claim it refers simply to a version that doesn't correspond word-for-word with the original text, whereas others define it as a version reworded from an already existing English translation. This later definition is what is giving license to redefining the word "translation" in very loose terms for me.

So what is correct? Wiki defines the word Paraphrase as “a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.” It then defines the word Rewording as “changing a particular word or phrase to state or express it again in different words.”

Under these definitions, should not a version which takes great liberties with an original text be considered a paraphrase? Yes or no?

I invite anyone's opinions.

A few quotes from sources that tend to agree with the above conclusion that a paraphrase is simply a loose version based off scripture itself, since nothing is mentioned about a preexisting English version in their definitions of the term.

Paraphrased translations use modern language and idioms to try to capture the thought and essence behind the original text.
Paraphrased Bible Translations - Olive Tree Bible Software

A biblical paraphrase is a literary work which has as its goal, not the translation of the Bible, but rather, the rendering of the Bible into a work that retells all or part of the Bible in a manner that accords with a particular set of theological or political doctrines.
Biblical paraphrase - Wikipedia

A paraphrase is a retelling of something in your own words… A paraphrase takes the meaning of a verse or passage of Scripture and attempts to express the meaning in “plain language.”
Should I use a paraphrase of the Bible?

“A paraphrase bible is one that allows the greatest level of liberty in translation. In fact, ‘translation’ is probably too strong a word for many of the paraphrase bibles out there… more and more modern versions are truly paraphrases. The dynamic equivalency doctrine of many modern versions is just a fancy way of saying paraphrase.”
Paraphrase Bibles | Learn The Bible

A paraphrase is a less literal rendering of the Bible – restating the text to give the original sense but not attempting to literally translate each term in the original language.
7. Translations
Tyndale | Stories: The Difference between Literal and Dynamic Translations of the Bible

Paraphrased Bibles, such as The Living Bible or The Message… exercise considerable “poetic license” in interpreting biblical terms and passages according to their own personal religious ideas.
What's the Difference Between Various Bible Versions?

 

[Radagast]

What Makes a Bible Version a Paraphrase?

Generally "paraphrase" is code for "this Bible translation is less word-for-word than I'm comfortable with."

 

[Hidden In Him]

Generally "paraphrase" is code for "this Bible translation is less word-for-word than I'm comfortable with."

This has always been my understanding of the term.

Now here is why I'm concerned. The following was presented to me at another site in reference to The Passion Translation, which after a brief scan on GatewayBible,com is not a word-for-word translation. It is a paraphrase.
BibleGateway - : Jude

Yet they claim it to be a translation on their official webpage:

“There is often some confusion in the Christian community when it comes to various versions of the Bible, particularly the differences between “translation” and “paraphrase.”

“A paraphrase version of the Bible utilizes an existing English-language translation as its base text. It paraphrases one version into more contemporary language. For instance, in 1971 the creator of The Living Bible paraphrased the existing American Standard Versionof 1901 to create a new English-language Bible version.”

“A translation, however, uses the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts as the base text for a new version of the Bible. It translates these original languages into a modern language. For example, the translators of the New International Version in 1978 worked off the original ancient-language manuscripts to produce a new English Bible by translating those ancient languages into the modern language.”

“Similar to such functional or dynamic equivalent translations as the New International Version and the New Living Translation Bible versions, The Passion Translation is a new version of God’s Word that is considered a translation because it uses the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts to translate the essential message of the Scriptures into contemporary English.”

“The Passion Translation is an excellent translation you can use as your primary text to seriously study God’s Word because it combines the best aspects of what is called formal and functional equivalence Bibles. It is a balanced translation that tries to hold both the Word’s literal meaning and original message in proper tension, resulting in an entirely new, fresh, fiery translation of God’s Word. Furthermore, this is the first modern English translation to use Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the disciples, as a lens through which to view God’s original Word to us, a word of truth and love.”

“This translation philosophy will benefit your serious study of Scripture in several ways.”
“The text was interpreted from the original language, carrying its original meaning and giving you an accurate, reliable expression of God’s original message.”
“The meaning of a passage takes priority over the form of the original words, so that every English speaker can encounter the heart of God through His Word in a way that’s natural and readable.”
“This translation keeps the Bible in step with changes in modern English, helping you clearly understand God’s original message and how it applies to your life in the twenty-first century.”
”This translation reclaims lost Aramaic texts, bringing the full texture of God’s Word to the surface, and helping you recapture the original essence of the teachings of Jesus and His disciples.
”This version taps into the love language of God, letting the words of Scripture go through the human soul, past the defenses of our mind, and into our spirit. Countless people have told us how The Passion Translation has helped them freshly discover intimacy with Christ in their journey through Scripture, and that it has rapidly become their favorite translation of choice for Bible study. We are thrilled to offer this accurate, faithful, clear, and readable translation for your serious study of God’s Word, and look forward to hearing how it helps you encounter the heart of God anew.”

 

[tampasteve]

That is a lot of words to leave out which manuscripts are being used. Especially for the "original Aramaic" manuscripts. Just saying"This translation reclaims lost Aramaic texts" makes it sound suspect without more detail. I would also like to know who the translation team was.

 

[Hidden In Him]

That is a lot of words to leave out which manuscripts are being used. Especially for the "original Aramaic" manuscripts. Just saying"This translation reclaims lost Aramaic texts" makes it sound suspect without more detail. I would also like to know who the translation team was.

The FAQ page:
https://www.thepassiontranslation.com/faqs/

 

[amariselle]

That is a lot of words to leave out which manuscripts are being used. Especially for the "original Aramaic" manuscripts. Just saying"This translation reclaims lost Aramaic texts" makes it sound suspect without more detail. I would also like to know who the translation team was.

The "translation team" is one man, Brian Simmons. You can listen to him describe his "commission" to create this "translation" on Sid Roth's It's Supernatural. (@ starting at 15:19)

 

[Ken Rank]

The problem with a paraphrase rather than using a direct word for word translation is that a paraphrase is guided ONLY BY the bias of the translator or the scribe. And thus you are reading what you might think is God's word and will when in reality you are reading the interpretation of whoever put that "translation" together. I personally believe we end up following the thoughts of that person, and not necessarily God's will (usually unintentionally) by not using a word for word translation while still looking up the Hebrew and Greek to confirm what we are reading.

 

[tampasteve]

The FAQ page:
https://www.thepassiontranslation.com/faqs/

Ah, so it is a single author translation in reality. They do say that "every book (including the numerous footnotes) is evaluated by respected scholars and editors." without references that I can see. They go on to justify single author translations. They give his reference for translating a copy of the scriptures for the Paya-Kuna people group of Panama...but they do not give any background of his credentials to translate Biblical languages. Reading a critical review HERE and then the response from Brian Simmons HERE seems to show that it is a great endeavor, and a good paraphrase, but to call it a good translation would be misleading. But it does seem like he translated it....but the value of his translation is up for debate.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The problem with a paraphrase rather than using a direct word for word translation is that a paraphrase is guided ONLY BY the bias of the translator or the scribe. And thus you are reading what you might think is God's word and will when in reality you are reading the interpretation of whoever put that "translation" together. I personally believe we end up following the thoughts of that person, and not necessarily God's will (usually unintentionally) by not using a word for word translation while still looking up the Hebrew and Greek to confirm what we are reading.

Absolutely. Interpretational bias can never be eliminated out entirely from even a genuine translation, but maintaining the definition of "translation" as referring primarily to word-for-word correspondence is at least stressing the need for equivalence. Any "translation" that throws out direct equivalence as grossly as The Passion Translation does should aptly be defined only as a paraphrase, at best.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Reading a critical review HERE and then the response from Brian Simmons HERE seems to show that it is a great endeavor, and a good paraphrase, but to call it a good translation would be misleading. But it does seem like he translated it....but the value of his translation is up for debate.

Thanks for checking, Steve. Personally, I wasn't impressed with it even as a paraphrase, but the issue that concerns me most is this redefining of paraphrases as translations. Under the definition that anyone anywhere can take an original text, completely disregard equivalence, render it in whatever way they feel best "communicates the text," and then present it to the world as a translation is... disturbing. Only those who know better from actually studying the languages will be able to discern that as a lie.

 

[Dave-W]

In general a translation comes from other-language sources while a paraphrase is a rewording of an existing translation without consulting the original language sources.

 

[tampasteve]

Thanks for checking, Steve. Personally, I wasn't impressed with it even as a paraphrase, but the issue that concerns me most is this redefining of paraphrases as translations. Under the definition that anyone anywhere can take an original text, completely disregard equivalence, render it in whatever way they feel best "communicates the text," and then present it to the world as a translation is... disturbing. Only those who know better from actually studying the languages will be able to discern that as a lie.

Completely agree

 

[Ken Rank]

Absolutely. Interpretational bias can never be eliminated out entirely from even a genuine translation, but maintaining the definition of "translation" as referring primarily to word-for-word correspondence is at least stressing the need for equivalence. Any "translation" that throws out direct equivalence as grossly as The Passion Translation does should aptly be defined only as a paraphrase, at best.

You're right, of course. Even a word for word will contain bias because no word has one meaning. Thus, with choices of meaning, a translator can still (even if innocently) insert his own bias into the work. That is why I always suggest, when studying, to take no word for granted and to look them up, prayerfully, yourself.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Hidden In Him]

In general a translation comes from other-language sources while a paraphrase is a rewording of an existing translation without consulting the original language sources.

I understand that there is a faction that defines it this way. But my experience is that the majority have never defined it in such narrow terms, and it is the redefining of the term "paraphrase" so as to allow for nearly anything to be regarded as "translation" if it is supposedly based upon an original text that has me concerned.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The "translation team" is one man, Brian Simmons. You can listen to him describe his "commission" to create this "translation" on Sid Roth's It's Supernatural. (@ starting at 15:19)

Now this is a case in point. If Sid Roth can buy into it being a translation, then who else can? Its value as a paraphrase is irrelevant. It sells itself in the title as a "Translation."

 

[SkyWriting]

I ask, because there are new versions coming out these days that define themselves as translations when they are in fact paraphrases in my opinion. But the term is defined differently by different sources. Some claim it refers simply to a version that doesn't correspond word-for-word with the original text, whereas others define it as a version reworded from an already existing English translation. This later definition is what is giving license to redefining the word "translation" in very loose terms for me.

So what is correct? Wiki defines the word Paraphrase as “a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.” It then defines the word Rewording as “changing a particular word or phrase to state or express it again in different words.”

Under these definitions, should not a version which takes great liberties with an original text be considered a paraphrase? Yes or no?

I invite anyone's opinions.

A few quotes from sources that tend to agree with the above conclusion that a paraphrase is simply a loose version based off scripture itself, since nothing is mentioned about a preexisting English version in their definitions of the term.

Paraphrased translations use modern language and idioms to try to capture the thought and essence behind the original text.
Paraphrased Bible Translations - Olive Tree Bible Software

A biblical paraphrase is a literary work which has as its goal, not the translation of the Bible, but rather, the rendering of the Bible into a work that retells all or part of the Bible in a manner that accords with a particular set of theological or political doctrines.
Biblical paraphrase - Wikipedia

A paraphrase is a retelling of something in your own words… A paraphrase takes the meaning of a verse or passage of Scripture and attempts to express the meaning in “plain language.”
Should I use a paraphrase of the Bible?

“A paraphrase bible is one that allows the greatest level of liberty in translation. In fact, ‘translation’ is probably too strong a word for many of the paraphrase bibles out there… more and more modern versions are truly paraphrases. The dynamic equivalency doctrine of many modern versions is just a fancy way of saying paraphrase.”
Paraphrase Bibles | Learn The Bible

A paraphrase is a less literal rendering of the Bible – restating the text to give the original sense but not attempting to literally translate each term in the original language.
7. Translations
Tyndale | Stories: The Difference between Literal and Dynamic Translations of the Bible

Paraphrased Bibles, such as The Living Bible or The Message… exercise considerable “poetic license” in interpreting biblical terms and passages according to their own personal religious ideas.
What's the Difference Between Various Bible Versions?

If they note that block logic is considered, then they are better.

The Philosophy of the Hebrew Language

BLOCK LOGIC (An Introduction to Hebrew Thought)

 

[amariselle]

Now this is a case in point. If Sid Roth can buy into it being a translation, then who else can? Its value as a paraphrase is irrelevant. It sells itself in the title as a "Translation."

I realize that. (By the way, I am the one that started the thread on the other forum).

This is the point, The Passion Translation is not a translation and it is not a paraphrase. It is dangerous and deceptive and it should be avoided.

Anyone can go and listen to Brian Simmons describe, in his own words, how he was "commissioned" to create it.

 

[Dave-W]

I understand that there is a faction that defines it this way. But my experience is that the majority have never defined it in such narrow terms,

I am using a secular definition that could apply to any document.

, and it is the redefining of the term "paraphrase" so as to allow for nearly anything to be regarded as "translation" if it is supposedly based upon an original text that has me concerned.

I understand. And even in proper translations there is wide latitude. take the NASB vs the NIV. Both are proper translations but are miles apart in how accurate they are.

 

[Dave-W]

If they note that block logic is considered, then they are better.

Yes. Most standard translators either are unaware or dismiss block logic altogether. But every book (including the NT) are written from that mindset and world view.

Another thing that is ignored: the various levels of meaning for the same text.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Generally "paraphrase" is code for "this Bible translation is less word-for-word than I'm comfortable with."

In general a translation comes from other-language sources while a paraphrase is a rewording of an existing translation without consulting the original language sources.

The problem with a paraphrase rather than using a direct word for word translation is that a paraphrase is guided ONLY BY the bias of the translator or the scribe. And thus you are reading what you might think is God's word and will when in reality you are reading the interpretation of whoever put that "translation" together. I personally believe we end up following the thoughts of that person, and not necessarily God's will (usually unintentionally) by not using a word for word translation while still looking up the Hebrew and Greek to confirm what we are reading.

That about sums it for me.