Truth and Myth in the Literal-Free Diagram (part 2)

Part 1 of this series discussed a basic notion within the alleged “translation philosophy scale”, namely “literal” translation (at the left extreme, see part 1 for two example diagrams).

In part 2, I will discuss briefly another basic notion of the diagram, namely “placement” (relative positioning) of certain English Bible versions (within the literal-to-free diagram).

“Placement” or “positioning” is what appears to give such diagrams their basic utility. It enables people to make quick judgments about various well-known Bible versions by positioning them across an alleged “translation spectrum” in order to do two things:

1.  to note how close (or how far) each version sits to the extremes (“literal” on the left side or “free” at the right side), as well as 

1.  to observe where a particular version sits relative to other versions.

The key problem, however, is that in reality not every verse of a particular Bible version will satisfactorily maintain its “position” according to the alleged scale.

For example, if we take the two most “polarized” versions (in the traditional diagram)—NASB and The Message—we would expect that every verse would always be radically different in each. And for most verses their relative positioning appears accurate, that is, in most verses the NASB translates much more formally (“literally”) than The Message. But we don’t always find the alleged extremes we would expect. That is, when we look at a list of names, such as the names in Lk 6:14, we find that The Message is barely much less literal or more “freely paraphrased” (“though-for-thought”) than NASB in that particular verse.

So for all the other versions not at the extremities of the diagram we find that not every verse of a particular version will maintain its alleged position in relation to another version. So, for example, the NRSV will not always more literal (less free) than the NLT for every verse (even though the diagram places them at some distance apart). If we compare Prov 16:3–9 in the NLT with the NRSV it is difficult to say which version is always more literal. So for verse 8, for example: Better a small (amount) with righteousness than great (amount) without justice the NRSV is hardly much more literal than NLT:

NRSV: Better is a little with righteousness
    than large income with injustice
NLT: Better to have little, with godliness,
    than to be rich and dishonest.

Whilst NLT uses “to be rich” to correspond to the phrase “great produce”, the NRSV has “large income.” Both are trying to relay the overall implied sense of “to be wealthy” or “to have riches.”

In all, the notion of relative positioning (and therefore the entire diagram) can be misleading, particularly as it suggests that translation philosophy is simply a two-dimensional enterprise, as though a “literal-to-free” scale can satisfactory explain the translation philosophy of all Bible versions.

The main reason why no version will maintain its alleged relative position for every verse is that translation is not primarily done with an eye on keeping any alleged relative position on the diagram! The translation philosophy in most contemporary Bible versions is primarily set by a mix of other agendas.

I will briefly discuss two of these in part 3, namely “reading level” and “register.”