The New Living Translation was developed with reference to original languages, but also followed Taylor’s wording in many places.

* * * *

The origins of the KJV, as explicitly stated in James’ charter, was to produce a translation that could compete with the extremely popular Geneva Bible, but without theological notes (in particular, James was bother by anti-monarchical notes). Formally, the KJV was supposed to be a revision of the Bishops’ Bible, with reference to other English translations, but in fact, the textual basis of the KJV is the Geneva Bible (which in turn was based on Tyndale-Coverdale).

The KJV’s anachronisms (as of the English language c. 1611) are largely due to the influence of the dominant Geneva Bible. The KJV failed to capture the public’s imagination, and languished even after Archbishop William Laud forbade printing or importing the Geneva. After the Restoration, the Geneva was largely believed to be politically suspect because of its close association with the Puritan movement, and finally — 50 years after its initial publication, the KJV finally began to enjoy strong use. It was still another 100 years later, with the polemics of Bishop Robert Lowth in 1760s, that the KJV began to be viewed as a literary masterpiece. Acceptance of the KJV was significantly later in the American colonies (and the early years of the United States).

It is fascinating to consider the relative literary advantages of Tyndale, the Geneva, and the Authorized Version. Each of these has merits and demerits and no one of the three can easily declared to be superior to the other two.

* * *

It is remarkable, however, that with the King James version, a long “dark ages” descended on English Biblical translation. While there was a flurry of translations beginning with the Revised Translation (and accelerating right until our current age) aimed at either using better source material, better understanding of original languages, or less anachronistic (or simpler) language, these later translations were, from a literary standpoint, steps backwards from the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV translations. (I should mention that some interesting translations did appear, such as Ronald Knox’s Vulgate translation or the New English Bible, although these are remarkable for the freshness of their interpretation and wording rather than pure literary merit. It also bears mention that much interesting activity took place in other vernacular languages, such as the Buber-Rosenzweig translation.) It is only in our current time, as individual scholars such as Robert Alter, Willis Barnstone, Everett Fox, Richard Lattimore, and Reynolds Price have turned their attention to Biblical translation that we are once again seeing translations that can compete on literary merit.

27 For he hath put all thinges vnder his fete. But when he sayth all thinges are put vnder him it is manyfest that he is excepted which dyd put all thinges vnder him.

28 When all thinges are subdued vnto him: then shall the sonne also him selfe be subiecte vnto him that put all thinges vnder him yt God maye be all in all thinges.

Peter, this is ironic since KJV may be considered a version. Here’s how Willis Barnstone puts it:

“The model for high and good translation of the New Testament remains the King James Authorized Version of 1611. Strictly speaking, the King James is, as its title states, ‘a version’ [i.e., a revision, or paraphrase] rather than a translation, since about eighty percent of its New Testament comes directly, with minimal change in letter of punctuation, from the William Tyndale translation, which appeared between 1525 and 1536. In rendering about half the Hebrew Bible directly from the Hebrew and the complete New Testament from the Greek, Tyndale produced a lucid version, beautiful in its cadences, plain in its lexicon, favoring [in its paraphrasing] the Anglo-Saxon over the Latin word. Erasmus saw in Tyndale ‘the evangelist to the poor.’ However, the near century of rapid change in the language also distances Tyndale that much more from contemporary spelling…. And it was in their famous preface that Miles Smith [of the KJV team] said… ‘Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light.’ The Authorized let in the light with bright focus and minimum distortion…. [The] William Tyndale is fully satisfying and still ‘old’ enough in spelling and speech to make it of the earlier age. There is not a stilted or churchy phrase in Tyndale’s everyday word, no obtrusive inversions. Tyndale’s English is as plain and compelling as Mark’s ordinary Greek.”
(page 1293, Restored New Testament)

I suppose some translations could be referred to as “white room” or “clean room” efforts.

If one understands the term paraphrase to refer to inaccurate translation, and/or it’s an antonym to literal translation, then I completely agree.

In fact, I’m more than just skeptical; it’s impossible to draw the line. Given the idiomatic nature of language, any translation is in some sense inaccurate and to some degree non-literal. So, since one can’t draw the line, this definition of paraphrase has no explanatory power when applied to a text. It’s pretty much just an emotive word.

If one uses the term paraphrase in its technical sense, then it’s completely obvious there’s a difference between paraphrase and translation.

I agree with your take on revision. It’s not really related to translation, per se. A paraphrase on the other hand (in its technical sense) is always a revision. Also, I agree that every translation since Coverdale and Tyndale is in some sense a revision.

I am very sceptical that there is a line one can draw between translations from the original languages and revisions or paraphrases.

Tyndale and Coverdale made extensive use of the Latin and German translations in addition to the original languages. Every translation since then inherits or rejects the wording of these translations.

I think that the discussion could end right there.

You are right that the NLT itself claims it is a “revision.” It does so in the “A Note to Readers” in my NLT. I take that to be a marketing statement. It makes no sense to take it as a translation methodology statement given the several pages of translation methodology explanation in the Introduction to the New Living Translation section which immediately follows.

My source is the prefatory material published in the the NLT itself.