Truth and Myth in the Literal-to-Paraphrase Diagram (part 3)

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 . . .

 

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.”