James White Encouraging Christians to be Truthful, More on Textual Criticism, Slippery Slopes + more [Dividing Line Audio & Video]

James White’s podcast/webcast, The Dividing Line, from Aug. 28, 2014 dealt with a wide range of theological and cultural issues.

Here’s the audio program:

And the video:

 

 

Happy National Bow-Tie Day!
Happy National Bow-Tie Day!

Audio timeline:

  • 03:30 – 15:29 We started out with an update on what is going on down in Australia with our brother David Ould and a reality TV show he did.  We hope to have David on, probably on 9/9, to discuss what is going on with the “spin” and the cultural response to a Christian witness regarding homosexuality.
  • 15:30 – 49:00 …discussed Yasir Qadhi and his response to ISIS and a recent article applying unfair standards to him. (mp3 tag: James corrects the record and encourages Christians to be sure of the truth of their sources when discussing Islam.)
  • 49:15 – 1:20:19 …a discussion of two textual variants.  That part has to be watched to have any idea what I’m talking about. (This is related to Jeff Riddle’s interaction with James White on Textual Criticism. Here is the screenflow of his first response to this that he mentions in the show)

[source: AOMin.org]

2 Replies to “James White Encouraging Christians to be Truthful, More on Textual Criticism, Slippery Slopes + more [Dividing Line Audio & Video]”

  1. Regarding James White’s interaction with Jeff Riddle’s comments:

    What I’m hearing here is not what I had been wishing to hear — a candid admission by James White that he was incorrect. So let’s review.

    Brother Riddle, beginning (in brother White’s review) around the 17:45 mark, mentioned that it would be inconsistent for a person to insist that the Comma Johanneum should be rejected because its Greek support is late and sparse, if that person is endorsing the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland text, because the NA28 text has a conjectural emendation (albeit bracketed) in its text of Acts 16:12, and another conjectural emendation in its text of Second Peter 3:10. The Comma Johanneum’s Greek support is late and sparse, but the Greek manuscript support for those two readings is *non-existent.*

    Riddle’s point has nothing to do with the doctrinal significance of the content of the variants involved. His point is simply that those who reject the CJ on the grounds that its Greek manuscript support is poor should also reject these particular readings in NA28, (A sub-point, which listeners should arrive at on their own, is that some professional textual critics responsible for the text of NA28 obviously believe that poor Greek manuscript support — even to the point of non-existence! — is not always a sufficient reason to reject a reading.)

    Let’s consider Riddle’s statements up close, from around the 18:20 mark: “Those are places where in the new Nestle-Aland 28th
    edition, they offer a conjecture that doesn’t have any extant Greek manuscript that supports the reading. If James White and other people are so upset about the Comma Johanneum not appearing in a Greek manuscript until the fourteenth century, what do they say about the current modern critical Greek New Testament that has readings that have absolutely no Greek manuscript support?”

    Riddle continues: “Are they gonna say, “We’re not gonna use this modern critical text and translations that are gonna be made from it?” – And, by the way, in the future, all the modern major translations will come up with new editions that will adjust to the Nestle-Aland 28th edition. My point here is that those who support the modern critical text are sort of caught in a conundrum: they want to criticize the TR for readings that have less than solid support, but then they’re willing to accept the modern critical text that has readings that have, in some places, at least, no support.”

    To this James White responded:
    “Now, I am especially sensitive to allegations of inconsistency. And that’s what we just got: I’m being inconsistent. Am I? If what Pastor Riddle just said was true, I am. But of course, what Pastor Riddle said isn’t true.”

    Now that we are all aware that the NA28 places a reading in the text of Second Peter 3:10 (at the end of the verse, not, ahem, earlier in the verse), it is undeniable that what Jeff Riddle said about NA28’s text at the end of Second Peter 3:10 was true.

    James White was oblivious to that when he stated, at 22:20, “Nowhere does any of the modern text make the text reading the conjectural emendation. It certainly doesn’t here.” He proceeds to say, “But the point is, the conjectural emendation was in the previous editions of the Nestle-Aland. He’s got it backwards. Look at the NA28.”

    Riddle did not have it backwards. White’s observation that NA28 removed conjectural emendations from the apparatus is true, but that has no bearing on what Riddle was saying. Riddle was referring to a specific reading in the text of Second Peter 3:10b in NA28, not to the reduction of information in its apparatus.

    White proceeded: “The exact opposite of what Pastor Riddle said is what actually takes place in the text. So, I’m not being inconsistent
    by any stretch of the imagination.”

    White was simply in error. (And surely he knows this, so why not just admit, “I mistook Bradshaw’s conjecture as the thing that Jeff Riddle was talking about. Oops.”??) Riddle’s description of what the editors of NA28 did in Second Peter 3:10b is accurate. White’s “point” that NA28 doesn’t have conjectural emendations listed in the apparatus does not diminish in the least the veracity of Riddle’s observation that NA28 has a reading in Second Peter 3:10b that has zero Greek manuscript support, or Riddle’s point that it is consistent to reject one reading because of poor Greek manuscript (whatever its doctrinal content), and then accept a reading that has *no* Greek manuscript support. White salvages some consistency by promptly rejecting the text of NA28 here, but inasmuch as the NA-28’s editors did not do so, this does not topple Riddle’s argument at all.

    1. Hi,

      The arguments themselves are not so important, imho, for reasons I explain in the urls below. I do believe it is an error to mix conjectural emendation discussions with heavenly witnesses discussions.

      (One point is important, on the overall issue of “inerrancy”. The other variant, Acts 16:12, has an opposite meaning in NA-27 and NA-28, which means that any pretense of infallibility and inerrancy have departed the UBS-NA modern version building. Either one group of modern versions is errant for the past decades, or the next group will be errant the next decades. However, this is value-added to the White-Riddle discussion.)

      What is quite fascinating and telling is that:

      1) James White did a round 2 show on 8/28 without the simple acknowledgment that the had the wrong variant in round 1 on 8/26. White pretended that he was simply continuing from the earlier discussion.

      ** This shows a total lack of scholastic integrity. **

      (The fact that he had the wrong variant was pretty bad, however errors do happen.)

      Round 2 – James White went back into 2 Peter 3:10 here at 1:08:10
      http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2014/08/28/three-main-topics-today-on-the-dividing-line/

      *** James White never acknowledged his earlier error of taking the wrong variant in the earlier discussion. ***

      2) On his Facebook forum, where the error was pointed out (my post quoting James Snapp and adding more) James White actually ** deleted ** the post that showed his error, a post cordial and informative! Deleted, rather than thanking us for the correction. Apparently the post went against a type of aominal infallibility complex.

      In summary, afawk James White still has never acknowledged having the wrong variant in the radio show response to Jeff Riddle. (Thus he blocks further discussion and he bans posters who he finds too difficult. James did me the honor of calling me a “Comma Cultist” for simply defending the pure word of God, and the verse that has been the single most significant historical debate.)

      =============

      The actual posts, with some pictures, were saved on the King James BIble Debate. We knew from an earlier experience from the aomin blog that they have a tendency to delete, although that had been a lieutenant.

      posted on 2 Peter 3:10 on James White prosapologian facebook
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10152336851926693/?comment_id=10152340064161693&offset=0&total_comments=36|

      Followed by:

      James White deletes 2 Peter 3:10 correction and Comma Johanneum references posts
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10152343431531693/

      =============

      You will note that James White got very testy when his lack of background and proper response on the heavenly witnesses (“Comma Johanneum”) was pointed out.

      Steven Avery

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *