8 Replies to “The Comma Johanneum, Reformed Baptists, & Doing Apologetics [James White’s reply to Jeff Riddle | Video]”

  1. Regarding the 18th-20th minute of James White’s response: White seems to have not gotten a secure grip on the issue regarding Second Peter 3:10. The focus of the controversy is not the conjecture “ARGA” (although that is what he seemed to think). The controversy involves the end of the verse: the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland GNT adopts, in the text, the words “OUC EUREQHSETAI,” (i.e., “shall not be found”), a reading which has zero support among Greek manuscripts. And, already in NA-27, the text of Acts 16:12 contained a reading which has zero support among Greek manuscripts.

    Riddle’s point was simple: if it is wrong to reject the Comma Johanneum on the grounds that its Greek support is relatively late and sparse, why is it right to accept the text in NA28 at Acts 16:12 and Second Peter 3:10, where the adopted reading has no Greek support at all? Whatever one thinks of the genuineness or non-genuineness of the CJ, Riddle’s basic point is valid. White was in over his head, and it shows in his video.

    And it does not salvage his case at all to divert viewers’ attention to the Textus Receptus’ reading in Revelation 16:5 (where the TR reading has no extant Greek support). Whether advocates of the Textus Receptus and/or KJV accept some conjectural emendations is not the question. The thing to see is that once one adopts any conjectural emendations in the New Testament text, one forfeits the right to use the “The Greek support for your favored reading is late and sparse” line as if it is absolutely decisive, because it if were /absolutely/ decisive, then the same principle would preclude the adoption of the NA28’s readings in Acts 16:12 and at the end of Second Peter 3:10. Except it would carry even more force, inasmuch as the “late and sparse” Greek support for the CJ is still /something,/ whereas the Greek support for these two readings in the text of NA28 is non-existent.

    1. James White went back into 2 Peter 3:10 here at 108:10
      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. ***

      As I expected (see the Facebook discussion) James White took the restricted view of “conjectural emendation” of no support in any language. When he accuses Beza of an emendation in Luke 2:22, he makes no such restriction.
      http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/sreply/42009/Beza-Luke-222-and-conjectural-emendation

      Textuallly, none of this is particularly important, as I explain in my posts, which I will link to separately.

      Except to show that James White is a charlatan. He took the wrong variant, and never made any acknowledgement of his blunder.

      Steven

  2. James White’s work in textual criticism has only increased my trust in the reliability of my new testament. A friendly challenge is away appropriate. I hope disagreement here does not spiral into unnecessary divisions among brothers.

  3. Hi,

    For the posts deleted by James White, and some discussion of the issues (including a lot more on the heavenly witnesses and a mild criticism of James Riddle for the diversion into very minor issues) see:

    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/

    Steven

Leave a Reply

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