Norman Gottwald makes a distinction between a "version" and a "translation". His definition:
"Although the terms are often loosely used interchangeably, there is a difference between a version and a translation. A versionis a translation authorized by some ecclesiastical or governmental body and normally involving a number of translators, whereas a translationis an unofficial rendering that may entail many translators but more often is the work of one or two persons." [Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Brief Socio-Literary Introduction(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 75.]
However, in actual practice, he did not follow this convention even where he said he would in discussing 20th century English Bibles. For example, he identified the NAB and the NJB as "translations" when they actually fit his above definition of "version" [pg. 76].
It seems there is no real consensus regarding the difference between a "version" and a "translation". Would that be a fair assessment?
Both the NIV and the NET are direct translations of the original languages rather than revisions, for example, though one calls itself a version and the other a translation. So at the end of the day, might it be acceptable to say that all English Bibles are versions, but not all versions are translations? (I'm thinking specifically of the Living Bible, a paraphrase of the ASV without recourse to the original languages. It is a version, but cannot be said to be a translation.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]