Or taxonomy[i]…both mine
and others.
There is a need to categorize or
classify Bible views in a way that is accurate, clear, concise, consistent,
complete, and equitable. There are so many barnacles stuck to the hull of this
categorical ship, we need a fresh start. In the past, we have accepted and used
models that are biased, inaccurate, and polemic. On my blog, I have
explored some new possibilities, and proposed a model based on analyzing
one’s approach to either translation or text. In my opinion, I have some
experience in “Baptist Group” taxonomy that I believe helps point in the
direction of a good “Bible Views” model. I have no illusions that I have the
name recognition, promotional skills, reach, or support to press my ideas into
service. Perhaps there are others who are working on this who can benefit from my thoughts and suggestions.
Timothy Berg has done some good work on
Bible versions classification. He has proposed and is working toward a useful
model. The concept is to chart the broad views on the reliability of the New Testament
text, then subdivide within those broad views. I think that it has a good deal
of overlap with my work. In the Textus Receptus Academy group/forum on
Facebook, Tim suggested that broadly we should see three views:
- TEXTUAL ABSOLUTISM - we have a final authority in one form/edition/translation of the
text which is above revision. (Usually this also accompanies hesitation or
distrust of other forms/editions/translations, but perhaps not always).
- TEXTUAL
CONFIDENCE (referring to general confidence) - we don’t have the exact words of
the original in any text/edition/translation, but any good text/edition/translation
is still the word of God, which is still a preserved authority.
- TEXTUAL
SKEPTICISM - textual corruption is so severe that we have no real Bible and no
authority.
He further wrote, “I think this gets
at the core *categorical* distinctions between views. And it helps respect each
view’s core claim with language they would adopt...So these broad views help
distinguish the basic categorical differences with a single word that gets at
the core claim of each in a fair manner.”[ii] However,
I see a few slight problems with Tim’s categories. First, “absolutism” and
“skepticism” have some negative connotations that will likely make them
distasteful to those categorized under these labels. I’m not sure whether the
“skeptics” care, but the “absolutists” do. This is demonstrably true from the pushback
against the term “textual absolutism” by KJV and TR defenders. Second, unveiling these
on the “Textual Confidence Collective” had its own negative ramifications,
since many see the series as a polemic against “Textual Absolutism.” Finally,
on the “Textual Confidence Collective” the discussion made it clear that
“Textual Confidence” is the right position.[iii] This
again has negative effects on proposing this as an equitable model.
I further notice the Absolutism-Confidence-Skepticism
model:
- has not
thus far attempted to subcategorize the Textual Skepticism and Textual
Confidence views, suggesting this classification focuses only on Textual
Absolutism rather than equally on all three views. This is not to say it will
never, but this is nevertheless is a negative aspect for the time being as
people consider the classifications.
- puts
Textual Absolutism side by side and sets Textual Confidence apart as the right
view. Placed on an equitable spectrum, however, the Textual Confidence view
falls somewhere in between Textual Absolutism and Textual Skepticism. This is
not to say it will not be corrected in the future, but this is nevertheless is
a negative aspect for the time being as people consider these classifications.
- emphasizes
the similarities of Textual Absolutism and Textual Skepticism, but seems to
disregard any similarities between Textual Absolutism and Textual Confidence,
or between Textual Confidence and Textual Skepticism. Again, this is not to say
it will not be corrected in the future. A Venn Diagam might accurately
illustrate something like this:
The overlap might not be exactly
symmetrical;
I used the Basic Venn format in
MS Word and took what was the default image.
We should not throw the baby out with
the bathwater.[iv]
We should take the good, tweak the inadequate, look for wider input, and produce
something that could be widely agreed on and used by serious taxonomists. There
will always be naysayers. That will never be solved.[v]
I hope this model or some other might
be used to sort out various views about the Bible, at various levels. On a
spectrum it will demonstrate both concordance and discordance. If one believes
that a particular translation or text of the Bible is definitively the word of
God, that person shares in common an idea – in a broad way – with everyone else
who believes a particular translation or text of the Bible is definitively the
word of God. Then we narrow the parameters. Do both believe that the same translation or text of the Bible is
definitively the word of God? If not, then they are separated into different
categories at that point. If so, then we again narrow the parameters. Do they
both believe that the same translation or
text of the Bible is definitively the word of God in the same way? If not, then they are separated
into different categories at that point. If so, we must again narrow the
parameters. And so on, until the questions and classifications are satisfied.
So, for example, I broadly agree with Peter Ruckman that the King James Bible
is the word of God. But as we narrow the parameters, we will demonstrate that
he and I do not hold the same view about the King James Bible. We could be
classified under the same broad category, but must be sifted into different specific
categories. Below is an example of how I visualized charting this work might
begin. Further, I have tried to illustrate how my original model and the work
of Tim Berg overlap.
(Click image to enlarge)
I believe that (1) Timothy Berg is
making a sincere attempt to increase the light and decrease the heat, and (2)
some people will never be satisfied with any model that is not their own, and
especially one that comes from someone they view as on the other side of the
aisle. Nevertheless, I hope Tim and the TCC might reassess this vision and
continue to work on the model to rid it of any unfavorable elements. I think
they might have the reach to promote a good classification for general use. I
do not think they have achieved a good final form. Over the course of several
months, I have given some thought to how Tim’s model might be tweaked. I have
gone back and forth on words that might be acceptable or unacceptable to
various “stakeholders.” This is my latest and tentative proposal for possible broad
categories:
- Textual privilege – holding one text or translation as the right choice, to the exclusion of all others.
- Textual
preference – holding one text or
translation as a better choice, but not to the exclusion of all others.
- Textual precaution – holding no particular text or
translation as a right choice, with ongoing uncertainties concerning the
correct reading(s).
This schema is not without its
difficulties, but, in my opinion, moves things a little further in the right
direction,[vi] and
posits something else with which to work. I would love to see more diverse and impartial
interest concentrated on this useful goal.
Endnotes
[i] A
taxonomy is a system of classification organizing facts or things into groups
or types. The purpose of a taxonomy is to organize and index information or
knowledge so that can more easily find and understand the data and
relationship(s). Taxonomies may use hierarchies (a system of classification of
persons or things ranked one above another) or spectrums (a system of
classification positioning on a scale between two extreme or opposite points)
to present the information. I see Bible views classification as a spectrum.
[ii] The
broad views help distinguish the basic categorical differences, while other
differences may be distinguished within the basic categories. For example,
within “Textual Absolutism,” Tim suggested five possible views on a spectrum.
(This is from Facebook; I do not recall if he tweaked these on the TCC video.) 1.
Ruckmanism (the views promoted by Peter Ruckman); 2. KJV Only (the
views promoted by Gail Riplinger); 3. King James Bible Defenders
(e.g., the views of Laurence Vance); 4. King James/ Textus Receptus
Defenders (equal or near equal focus on defending both the KJB and the TR);
and 5. Textus Receptus Defenders (defense of the traditional
original language texts). I think these categories need some work. For example,
find a designation for category one other than “Ruckmanism,” while continuing
to use Peter Ruckman as an example of this view. Do those who hold Ruckman’s
view call themselves “Ruckmanites”? I do not know the answer to that. A
group’s core claim, as well as how they identify themselves, should have a
strong impact on how a group is classified. I can perceive any number of
churches, preachers, and/or theologians who might readily identify themselves
as “King James Only” while rejecting any identification with Gail
Riplinger. Additionally, I think “Traditional Text Defenders” is a more
accurate description than “TR (Textus Receptus) Defenders.” Textus Receptus most
commonly only refers to the Greek text. Those who are familiar with the
original languages hold a position of both
a certain Greek Text and a certain
Hebrew text as the acceptable form of the text. Classification is not perfect.
There will always be some views on the edges of one classification that might
fit just as easily in another classification. However, it should be careful and
consistent in its presentation, and fair (in the sense of representing a view
accurately) to all concerned.
[iii] For
example, in a talk at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Mark Ward quipped,
“As we all know that the first two views in a list of three are never right, it
is always the third that is right. And, so it is in this case, my brothers. The
orthodox view is ‘Textual Confidence.’” In terms of classification, the model’s
aim should be accuracy, not proving the right position. That is polemic, which
has its place elsewhere. Classification at its basic level should not be
polemic.
[iv]
On the other hand, I am all for throwing out James White’s classifications –
the baby, the bathwater, and the tub they are both in!
[v]
Obviously, in this article I may appear to be one of the naysayers. That is not
my point. I am offering constructive criticism to hopefully move something good
toward something better. I do not even offer my Textual privilege, Textual
preference, and Textual precaution categories as something that must be used
because I suggest it. Rather they are something that should bump up against
Textual absolutism, Textual confidence, and Textual skepticism and, like the
mash up of peanut butter and chocolate, perhaps create something better together than
what one is alone.
[vi]
Of the three categories, I am currently most dissatisfied with my description
of the third category.
