Dr. James White's Newest Discussion

[Taylor]

Good day, brother and sisters.

Today I am listening to Dr. James White's newest discussion about textual issues on Apologia Radio. I, for one, am quite thankful for Dr. White's ministry and especially his work in this area. Although I still have not fallen into one or the other category definitely, I appreciate that I am at least aware of the issues with whatever text I am using. Since I love to be better educated about this topic, I would love for the bright minds of this forum to watch this video and maybe leave a comment or two with their thoughts. I know these issues have been hammered out already at length, but maybe something new will be said.

[video=youtube;izLoGyJM_hQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izLoGyJM_hQ[/video]

 

[Username3000]

I'll begin by saying that I am complete amateur in this area, and I still have much to learn.

I greatly appreciate Dr. White's work. He has helped me begin to understand textual criticism more than I ever have before. He has helped me to see that textual criticism isn't a bane to the Christian, but a great blessing. As much as those who oppose the CT would claim the contrary, his teaching on this topic has greatly strengthened my confidence and trust in the text of Scripture, whereas the anti-CT positions have always left me with more questions than answers, and have actually undercut my confidence in this area.

The statement he makes that many people sacrifice truth for comfort here really hits home for me. Since I have begun listening to Dr. White, I have yet to hear a critic of his say anything that is even remotely convincing to my mind.

I know many brothers will disagree with me, but I have nothing but good things to say about my experience with Dr. White, and his teaching on the text of Scripture. I thank God for his work.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

James White has indeed been a blessing to me as well. He is an excellent apologist and a true scholar. He is also right to take on many of these KJV only people who make bad arguments and lead many astray. That being said, there are many of us who disagree with his conclusions regarding textual criticism. For a more reasoned and scholarly dissent from Dr. White's position than that offered by so many of his opponents, I would commend to you the work of Dr. Maurice Robinson. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html

 

[Robert Truelove]

I am one of those "ETers" in the Reformed Pub on Facebook. Here is my response there to his latest video...

---------

Just finished watching, and my initial thoughts...

1) The issue is not the textual data but HOW we interpret it. Presenting the "ET" position as simply burying one's head in the sand and ignoring the data has already been proven thoroughly false right here in the Pub. Simply go back over all of the comments made over the last few days in the pub by ET proponents. Dr. White's comments in this regard are only persuasive to people not following the conversation.

There is also, yet again, the couching of the argument within in an anti-KJVO kind of framework (and I am truly getting weary of it). Who here was denying there were not some issues in the TR (of whatever edition)? However, as soon as we recognize the minor issues, we are said to not have a text to base translations upon ("Where is the text? You can't produce a text?", says White). This is a complete red herring. If our not being about to hold up a text and say "in every single solitary respect THIS is the perfect autographic text!" means we don't have a text, then what on Earth can Dr. White hold up and make this claim?

I can hold up the TR (pick ANY edition) and say this is the text of the Reformation and it is based upon the text of the Greek text copied for centuries in the East where people were actually still speaking Greek. When I am asked, "What about Revelation 15:3?", I can look at the data and say...yep, there does seem to be a deviation from the better reading from the source our printed text came from and address that in my exegesis. That in no way proves I "don't have a text". As a matter of fact, a ET approach gives me a lot more confidence in my text than does a CT approach to anyone who cares to look at textual commentaries and the stunning labyrinth of disagreements between bonafide textual scholars on the vast majority of important variants.

Absolute certainty for every single solitary variant problem is NOT what "ETism" is contending for. The position has simply been misrepresented.

I compare the way Dr. White presents the concerns and the case being made by "ETers" like the way anti-Calvinistic Arminians present Calvinism. There are so many red herrings and straw men arguments being made in this latest video that it would take considerable time and effort to take it apart piece by piece. This we will do over time if God permits.

James R. White, all of the above are my initial thoughts to the members of the Pub. If you care to respond, what I'd like to hear you address (without deflection this time please) the question I have asked you repeatedly for some time now. It's simple, and answering it will speak to the heart of the concern of your ET brethren.

----------

If the Scripture is self-authenticating as our confession teaches...

"...it is to be received because it is the Word of God" 1689 1.4

"...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." 1689 1.5

How is it that the church, both East and West, could have been wrong about the authenticity of this complete gospel narrative (The Pericope Adulterae) for so long?—that is, how can you consistently maintain a self-authenticating Bible and a blunder of this magnitude being received for so long?

I'll add, you've answered "tradition" before but this doesn't answer the question. You need to square that with how you address the implications for the church (virtually everywhere) doing this for over a Millenia. Since our ultimate confidence is in the authenticating work of the Holy Spirit, how does your view consistently address this when, according to you view, the Holy Spirit wasn't working in this particular case for so long. Keep in mind that we, nor our confession, is making this claim for dogma (the church can indeed and does err there), but here were dealing with an extended and complete gospel narrative received as the text of Scripture.

 

[Taylor]

I am one of those "ETers" in the Reformed Pub on Facebook. Here is my response there to his latest video...

This is precisely the response I was looking for. Thank you so much for your thoughts. I truly hope this continues.

P.S. — I was born and grew up a little north of Athens, GA, and lived there until I moved to Illinois for seminary a little over a year and a half ago. I hope to come visit your church at some point in the near future. I will surely introduce myself when the time comes, Lord willing.

 

[MW]

Paraphrasing ... "The canon is one thing, the text is another." There is the issue. He adopts this assumption without undertaking to prove it. Ironically, in the course of his own presentation he has given evidence to overturn it, when he connects the dispute over the canonical reception of Revelation with the manuscript evidence relating to the text.

 

[manuelkuhs]

Paraphrasing ... "The canon is one thing, the text is another." There is the issue.

That struck me also.

Is he trying to say that the canon which the Spirit led the church to receive is simply a 1 page table of contents to the bible with a list of the canonical books?

These canonical books contain words, right??

I think the longer ending of Mark is longer than the entire epistle of 3 John...

 

[Dekybo]

Paraphrasing ... "The canon is one thing, the text is another." There is the issue.

That struck me also.

Is he trying to say that the canon which the Spirit led the church to receive is simply a 1 page table of contents to the bible with a list of the canonical books?

These canonical books contain words, right??

I think the longer ending of Mark is longer than the entire epistle of 3 John...

I may be wrong, but I believe that the distinction he is making between the canon and the text itself is to show that he disagrees with certain reformed believers over portions of the text not what is accepted as canon. He may conclude that the longer ending of Mark and that the beginning of John 8 should not be a part of Scripture, but both gospels are not open to debate as to their canonicity. The accepted canon is a point of agreement that all Christians should be able accept.

 

[Whitefield]

Paraphrasing ... "The canon is one thing, the text is another." There is the issue.

That struck me also.

Is he trying to say that the canon which the Spirit led the church to receive is simply a 1 page table of contents to the bible with a list of the canonical books?

These canonical books contain words, right??

I think the longer ending of Mark is longer than the entire epistle of 3 John...

WCF I.2 is a statement of the Canon. The Canon is a list of books which comprise the authoritative books; the text is the contents of those canonical books. The Canon is the list of the books contained between the covers of your Bible; the text is the words contained therein. Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.

 

[MW]

Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.

With different approaches and methods, one having a primary place for the witness of the church while the other ignores that witness in favour of the agreement of favoured mss. It is what it is. The issue is, can they be separated in this way? The textual critics themselves are thrown back onto historical criticism at numerous points in the process of their investigations, and repeatedly make historical claims which impact canonicity.

 

[MW]

These canonical books contain words, right??

I think the longer ending of Mark is longer than the entire epistle of 3 John...

3 John is longer, but the two are comparable for showing the way canonics can accept a whole block of text simply because it belongs to an accepted book whilst textual criticism can discard a whole block of text because of its absence in certain mss., notwithstanding the fact that the discarded text has as much support as the accepted text.

 

[Dekybo]

With different approaches and methods, one having a primary place for the witness of the church while the other ignores that witness in favour of the agreement of favoured mss. It is what it is. The issue is, can they be separated in this way? The textual critics themselves are thrown back onto historical criticism at numerous points in the process of their investigations, and repeatedly make historical claims which impact canonicity.

Could you provide a specific example of a his tick claim that textual critics make that impacts canonicity?

 

[MW]

Take the short ending of Mark. It leads to the conclusion that the Gospel is unfinished or that there were two or more editions. You can impose a conservative view of inspiration to deny this claim, but at the canonical level you would be falling back on a non evidential position which runs counter to empirical methods of textual criticism.

 

[Dekybo]

Take the short ending of Mark. It leads to the conclusion that the Gospel is unfinished or that there were two or more editions. You can impose a conservative view of inspiration to deny this claim, but at the canonical level you would be falling back on a non evidential position which runs counter to empirical methods of textual criticism.

Couldn't you accept the shorter rendering of Mark as a complete gospel without concluding that it is unfinished or that there were several accounts?

 

[MW]

Couldn't you accept the shorter rendering of Mark as a complete gospel without concluding that it is unfinished or that there were several accounts?

The point is that the discipline is not coming to the short ending of Mark on textual considerations apart from higher historical considerations which impact their findings.

 

[Whitefield]

Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.

With different approaches and methods, one having a primary place for the witness of the church while the other ignores that witness in favour of the agreement of favoured mss. It is what it is. The issue is, can they be separated in this way? The textual critics themselves are thrown back onto historical criticism at numerous points in the process of their investigations, and repeatedly make historical claims which impact canonicity.

A debate over the Comma Johanneum is not a debate over whether 1 John should be in the Canon; it is a debate as to which textual variants should be included in the book already accepted as canonical. I am not aware of anyone claiming that because there is a question about 1 John 5:7-8 there is a question as to 1 John's place in the Canon. If Canon and text are the same thing, then any textual variant in a book would bring into question that book's place in the Canon, and hence any textual critical discussion on the presence or absence of ὑμιν in 1 John 1:4 would imply a question as to the canonicity of 1 John.

 

[MW]

A debate over the Comma Johanneum is not a debate over whether 1 John should be in the Canon; it is a debate as to which textual variants should be included in the book already accepted as canonical. I am not aware of anyone claiming that because there is a question about 1 John 5:7-8 there is a question as to 1 John's place in the Canon. If Canon and text are the same, then any textual variant in a book would bring into question that book's place in the Canon, and hence any textual critical discussion on the presence or absence of ὑμιν in 1 John 1:4 would imply a question as to the canonicity of 1 John.

Is the final form of the text of 1 John dependent on the apostle John or a Johannine community? Those who are working with the text do not treat historical criticism as a separate issue, but integrate it at numerous points.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.

With different approaches and methods, one having a primary place for the witness of the church while the other ignores that witness in favour of the agreement of favoured mss. It is what it is. The issue is, can they be separated in this way? The textual critics themselves are thrown back onto historical criticism at numerous points in the process of their investigations, and repeatedly make historical claims which impact canonicity.

A debate over the Comma Johanneum is not a debate over whether 1 John should be in the Canon; it is a debate as to which textual variants should be included in the book already accepted as canonical. I am not aware of anyone claiming that because there is a question about 1 John 5:7-8 there is a question as to 1 John's place in the Canon. If Canon and text are the same, then any textual variant in a book would bring into question that book's place in the Canon, and hence any textual critical discussion on the presence or absence of ὑμιν in 1 John 1:4 would imply a question as to the canonicity of 1 John.

The point that I think so many are missing is that the process and authority that established the canon is the same as the process and authority that established the ecclesiastical text. It makes little sense to affirm this process and authority when it comes to the canon, and yet reject it when it comes to the text. The truth is that if Dr. White were apply his textual methods towards the canon, no doubt he would arrive at many of the same conclusions that Ehrmann and other liberal scholars have arrived at. Perhaps his reluctance to arrive at such a conclusion explains his inconsistency.

 

[Whitefield]

A debate over the Comma Johanneum is not a debate over whether 1 John should be in the Canon; it is a debate as to which textual variants should be included in the book already accepted as canonical. I am not aware of anyone claiming that because there is a question about 1 John 5:7-8 there is a question as to 1 John's place in the Canon. If Canon and text are the same, then any textual variant in a book would bring into question that book's place in the Canon, and hence any textual critical discussion on the presence or absence of ὑμιν in 1 John 1:4 would imply a question as to the canonicity of 1 John.

Is the final form of the text of 1 John dependent on the apostle John or a Johannine community? Those who are working with the text do not treat historical criticism as a separate issue, but integrate it at numerous points.

Textual criticism and historical criticism are different disciplines. Textual criticism tries to look at the extant manuscripts and make educated guesses as to what probably harkens back to the original text. Historical critism assumes layers of redactors who intentionally manipulated the text to convey some doctrinal point, and then plays the role of historical psychologist in order to unravel the original meaning behind the presented text. Maurice Robinson is an excellent textual critic, but he is not a historical critic, nor, I assume, would he ever want to be included in that category. A textual critic approaches the ending of Mark from a much different direction than a historical critic, carrying a much different bag of tools and a much different set of assumptions.

 

[Whitefield]

Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.

With different approaches and methods, one having a primary place for the witness of the church while the other ignores that witness in favour of the agreement of favoured mss. It is what it is. The issue is, can they be separated in this way? The textual critics themselves are thrown back onto historical criticism at numerous points in the process of their investigations, and repeatedly make historical claims which impact canonicity.

A debate over the Comma Johanneum is not a debate over whether 1 John should be in the Canon; it is a debate as to which textual variants should be included in the book already accepted as canonical. I am not aware of anyone claiming that because there is a question about 1 John 5:7-8 there is a question as to 1 John's place in the Canon. If Canon and text are the same, then any textual variant in a book would bring into question that book's place in the Canon, and hence any textual critical discussion on the presence or absence of ὑμιν in 1 John 1:4 would imply a question as to the canonicity of 1 John.

The point that I think so many are missing is that the process and authority that established the canon is the same as the process and authority that established the ecclesiastical text. It makes little sense to affirm this process and authority when it comes to the canon, and yet reject it when it comes to the text. The truth is that if Dr. White were apply his textual methods towards the canon, no doubt he would arrive at many of the same conclusions that Ehrmann and other liberal scholars have arrived at. Perhaps his reluctance to arrive at such a conclusion explains his inconsistency.

You make reference to "the ecclesiastical text". Can you be specific and tell me where I might find this text? I would like to see if it contains the Comma Johanneum.

 

[MW]

Textual criticism and historical criticism are different disciplines.

You are just repeating your original assertion and failing to interact with the factors which have been presented to challenge that assertion. A textual critic has to believe something about the historicity of the text; he must have some sort of working hypothesis as to "the thing" he is reconstructing.

 

[Whitefield]

Textual criticism and historical criticism are different disciplines.

You are just repeating your original assertion and failing to interact with the factors which have been presented to challenge that assertion. A textual critic has to believe something about the historicity of the text; he must have some sort of working hypothesis as to "the thing" he is reconstructing.

Indeed a textual critic has to believe something about the historicity of the text. But that is not what you said earlier. Earlier you connected the textual critic with historical criticism. Historical criticism is a technical term which does not mean "dealing with the historicity of the text". In fact, historical criticism cares little about the historicity of the text; it is concerned with the psychology and motives of those who transmitted the text. Your quoted statement is pretty obvious and I doubt any textual critic would find fault with it, but what is your point in stating the obvious?

 

[MW]

Your quoted statement is pretty obvious and I doubt any textual critic would find fault with it, but what is your point in stating the obvious?

I am stating the obvious because the obvious is being denied by those who separate text and canon as if they were to be established on two different bases. They cannot be separated in the concrete despite the abstract attempt to do so, which means the witness of the church is as important for the text as for the canon. They go hand in hand.

 

[Whitefield]

Your quoted statement is pretty obvious and I doubt any textual critic would find fault with it, but what is your point in stating the obvious?

I am stating the obvious because the obvious is being denied by those who separate text and canon as if they were to be established on two different bases. They cannot be separated in the concrete despite the abstract attempt to do so, which means the witness of the church is as important for the text as for the canon. They go hand in hand.

If the question of Canon and text are so intertwined and the church has clearly spoken on issues of Canon, I assume it has also clearly spoken on issues of the text. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical Canon, hopefully you would point me to WCF I.2 or LBCF I.2 for a clear answer. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical text, where would you point me for a clear answer?

 

[MW]

If the question of Canon and text are so intertwined and the church has clearly spoken on issues of Canon, I assume it has also clearly spoken on issues of the text. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical Canon, hopefully you would point me to WCF I.2 or LBCF I.2 for a clear answer. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical text, where would you point me for a clear answer?

On the first question, you have the basic fact that canonical discussions include quotations of a "text" as evidence that an apostolic father regarded the "book" as authoritative.

On the second question, WCF 1.8 has the answer you are looking for; and you will find in the proofs from Scripture the type of text which the divines regarded as having been kept pure and to be appealed to as authentic.

 

[Whitefield]

On the second question, WCF 1.8 has the answer you are looking for; and you will find in the proofs from Scripture the type of text which the divines regarded as having been kept pure and to be appealed to as authentic.

To be more specific and clear: does the NASB (or the ESV, or the NIV) fulfill the intent of WCF I.8 for those in the English speaking world?

 

[MW]

To be more specific and clear: does the NASB (or the ESV, or the NIV) fulfill the intent of WCF I.8 for those in the English speaking world?

We were talking about the text in relation to the canon and you have asked a question about translations. I can't discern any context by which to understand your question.

 

[Whitefield]

To be more specific and clear: does the NASB (or the ESV, or the NIV) fulfill the intent of WCF I.8 for those in the English speaking world?

We were talking about the text in relation to the canon and you have asked a question about translations. I can't discern any context by which to understand your question.

Then it seems the ecclesiastical text is a general concept with no concrete definition.

 

[MW]

To be more specific and clear: does the NASB (or the ESV, or the NIV) fulfill the intent of WCF I.8 for those in the English speaking world?

We were talking about the text in relation to the canon and you have asked a question about translations. I can't discern any context by which to understand your question.

Then it seems the ecclesiastical text is a general concept with no concrete definition.

Are you trying to be opaque? I haven't a clue what your statement has to do with the relationship between text and canon in text critical methodology.

 

[Whitefield]

To be more specific and clear: does the NASB (or the ESV, or the NIV) fulfill the intent of WCF I.8 for those in the English speaking world?

We were talking about the text in relation to the canon and you have asked a question about translations. I can't discern any context by which to understand your question.

Then it seems the ecclesiastical text is a general concept with no concrete definition.

Are you trying to be opaque? I haven't a clue what your statement has to do with the relationship between text and canon in text critical methodology.

How does the canon guide us in regards to textual variants (e.g. the Comma Johanneum)?