More work on Bible versions classification

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:

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. Textual privilege – holding one text or translation as the right choice, to the exclusion of all others.
2. Textual preference – holding one text or translation as a better choice, but not to the exclusion of all others.
3. 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.