From: Micheal Palmer (
Date: Fri May 23 1997 - 02:35:38 EDT

At 11:15 PM -0700 5/21/97, Lee R. Martin wrote:
>Micheal Palmer wrote:
>> recently read the introduction to a very non-literal new translation which
>> made the claim 'This is a translation, not a paraphrase.' Well, the editors
>> either didn't know the meanings of the terms or they were being
>> intentionally deceptive, since by virtually anyone's definition their work
>> IS a paraphrase. I would hasten to add that it is also a translation--just
>> a very non-literal one.
>Dear Michael,
>I would disagree with your statement above. Such a translation is not a
>paraphrase of the Hebrew/Greek, rather it is a paraphrase of their
>translation. First, they translated the original text, then they
>paraphrased their translation.

Does anyone really do it in two steps like that? I never have. When I
translate, I simply read the Greek text, then state what I have understood
to be its meaning in the clearest idiomatic English I can. Sometimes the
result is very literal, but sometimes it is very non-literal, much like the
versions we are calling 'paraphrases.' I don't translate, then paraphrase.
I just 'transparaphrase' (or is it 'transparalate'?) :-)

And no, it's certainly not 'paratranslate.' :->

Micheal W. Palmer
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College

Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:16 EDT