Exploring some ideas for the Bible Versions Debates

Continuing the thoughts begun Thursday in Recategorizing “KJV Only” and Friday in New categories for the Bible Versions Debates
 
One of the elements that pervades Bible versions discussions (and belief/opinions) is the tendency to dogmatism. Those who advocate for the exclusive use of the King James Version for English-speaking Christians are admittedly very dogmatic. Those who promote modern translations may appear less so – while becoming extremely dogmatic in opposing “King James Onlyism”! Nevertheless, there exists a difference between preference (“I prefer this”) and dogmatism (“This is right”).  Perhaps “Exclusive,” “Semi-Exclusive,” and “Open” might be considered as words to distinguish these approaches.  Perhaps they have less baggage that some other words currently in use?
 
Exclusive would be limited to one designated view, not admitting to the correctness of other views. Examples of an exclusive view include (1) believing the King James translation is the only valid English translation, or (2) believing the Daniel Bomberg Hebrew text and the Greek Textus Receptus are the proper original languages texts – and only these should be used for making translations into other languages.
 
Semi-Exclusive would make some exclusive views that are limited to a similar range, while allowing for diversity within that range. Using only a Majority Text or only a Critical Text exhibit semi-exclusivity – the text can vary within the range, but not move outside of it. Holding that a proper translation must be in the realm of formal equivalence rather than dynamic equivalence makes some degree of an exclusive claim. However, it does not narrow the field to only one translation.
 
Open would allow for great diversity, accepting the propriety of other views – and occupy a position for ongoing adjustments. Among Bible believers there probably could not be a truly “no-holds barred” open position. Nevertheless, many believers exhibit a spirit of openness to Bible versions not found among those with exclusive or semi-exclusive views. One holding an open view might have his or her own preferences, while never condemning the preferences of others. Churches that use a number of different translations could be considered an example of an open view.
 
In addition to these considerations, we can understand that the Exclusive view normally would be static or fixed, and the Semi-Exclusive view might be mostly so. The Open view, in contrast would be versatile or flexible. These are general characteristics, and do not imply that those in any of these categories have not or could never change their views.
 
At least three questions should be asked concerning the Bible, with the answer to each helping to discern whether that view fits on a spectrum from open to exclusive. 1. What do you believe about the Bible in its original or first writing? 2. What do you believe about the copies of the original writing? 3. What do you believe about the translations of the copies of the original writing?
 
Below are four examples of how this information might be used to categorize different views about the Bible.[i]
 
An example of how an Open View might approach various factors related to the Bible

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant – limited to a dogmatic view
• we cannot know what is the original – open to varying possibilities
• the copies of the originals contain scribal errors, so they are not exact replicas of the originals – open to varying possibilities
• all translations reproduce scribal errors and introduce translation errors; any translational preference may be chosen (and changed) by the reader – open to varying possibilities

An example of how a Semi-Exclusive View might approach various factors related to the Bible

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant – limited to a dogmatic view
• we cannot know but can substantially reproduce the originals through collation and comparison – open to varying possibilities
• copies of the originals contain scribal errors, but oldest is best; a Critical Text is the best reconstruction of those manuscripts – limited, with diversity within a similar range
• there are translations that can well represent the word of God; a formal equivalence translation such as the NASB should be used – limited, with diversity within a similar range

An example of how a Semi-Exclusive View might approach various factors related to the Bible

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant – limited to a dogmatic view
• copies of the originals contain scribal errors, but a collation and collation of the majority of manuscripts represent the preservation of the originals; a Majority Text is the best reconstruction of those manuscripts – limited, with diversity within a similar range
• there are translations that faithfully represent the word of God; a formal equivalence translation from a Majority Text should be used (such as the NKJV or EMTV) – limited, with diversity within a similar range

An example of how an Exclusive View might approach various factors related to the Bible

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant – limited to a dogmatic view
• we can know something about the originals because they have been preserved in copies and translations – limited to a dogmatic view
• there are copies that faithfully represent the word of God in the first writings; the Textus Receptus is an accurate construction of those copies – limited to a dogmatic view
• there are translations that faithfully represent the word of God as originally written; the King James Version is that translation – limited to a dogmatic view

---

[i] While such a grid probably can be used concerning any Bible view, views that reject the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible are mostly off my estate and outside of my knowledge and interest.