Now that I've critiqued what such diagrams claim to
display, by looking at what is “literal” (part 1) and at “relative positioning”(part 2), it’s appropriate to mention some things that the literal-to-free
diagram does not account for.
For now let’s discuss: “reading level” and
“register.”
“Reading level” is to do with the range of vocabulary (and
complex sentences) that a Bible version employs, and therefore it may have an “age
level” suitability (identified as a school-grade reading level). These recommended
“reading levels” will not be agreed upon by all. I tend toward the more optimistic
side of the Australian-based reading levels.
The NIV, for example, is suited for about a grade 6 competence
reading level which is lower than the NRSV (approx 10th grade). But differences
in reading level are not always very noticeable, so Mk 5:25-28:
NRSV: Now
there was a woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages for twelve
years. She had endured much under many physicians,
and had spent all that she had; and she was no better, but rather grew worse. She
had heard about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his
cloak, for she said, “If I but touch his
clothes, I will be made well.”
NIV: And
a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She
had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent
all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When
she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his
cloak, because she thought, “If I just
touch his clothes, I will be healed.”
Actually both NRSV and
NIV have simplified this single long sentence in similar ways, by breaking it into three
sentences to make it easier to read. “For she said” (NRSV) also belongs to a more formal “register” than NIV’s “because
she said.”
(NOTE "Formal register" is nothing to do with "formal/literal method of translation"--"formal register" has a very different meaning. "Register” refers to the kind of language suited to a particular
purpose or setting. The kind of language spoken among friends
tends to be much less formal than the kind of language one is expected to use
in a high-school essay which is still not as formal as that of a PhD thesis. So "formal" as in "not casual" or "not informal."
Sometimes, a more advanced reading-level corresponds
to a more “formal register.” Compare, however, Eugene Petersen’s The Message
(at the furthest extreme on the right of the diagram) and the Good News Bible (fourth
version from the right-hand side). The Message was written in contemporary
American English for adult readers, using highly idiomatic English phrases that
try to engage modern readers with a more “casual” tone. By contrast the Good
News Bible (GNB) was made for low-level readers, especially non-native
English speakers (whose first
language is not English). What is interesting about this comparison is that even
though these two are positioned closely together on Bible version diagrams,
they are quite different in both register and reading level.
The GNB was written in the kind of English “commonly
used by people most of the time” and uses a moderately formal register
(not colloquial style) and so it tries to avoid informal language (slang
and colloquialisms). It also tries to avoid “big words” (theological jargon).
It is generally aimed at a moderately low reading level (about grade 4
or 5 [Australian grades]). Likewise its replacement version, the CEV (made in
1995), was aimed at quite a low reading level (about grade 3 or 4) so
that reading aloud could be done easily and fluently. By contrast, The
Message requires a much higher reading level (grade 6+) and deliberately
uses informal (American) language.
Yet the literal-to-paraphrase diagram does not display
any of these factors. Simply adding reading levels to the diagram would appear
rather jumbled:
By now it
should be becoming clear that arranging English Bible versions on a two-dimensional
scale does not do justice to the complexity of Bible translation philosophy. Such
diagrams are more useful for exposing them for what they fail to show.
I could go on critiquing
such diagrams . . . For example, the degree of “literalness”
means different things to different translators. For example, the KJV is
usually considered to be quite “literal” (that is, relatively closer to the
left-hand extreme). However, it lacks one of the most common components of "formal/literal" methods--the use of “word consistency” whereby the same source words
are consistently represented in the target text by the same corresponding words
in English. Instead, the KJV translators tried to avoid the overuse of
stereotypical correspondences so as help make the translation more readable (by
employing a variety of English words for the same Hebrew or Greek word).
So that’s about
it folks for the literal-to-free diagram!
Oh, here’s one
more picture showing the lack of correspondence between word counts and alleged
“literalness” (care of epistlesofthomas based on stats from a paper by Karen H. Jobes “Bible Translation as Bilingual
Quotation.”):
But stay tuned
for plenty more snippets on Bible translation theory . . .
