Image: Closeup of koinonia at Ephesians 3:9 in minuscule 2817.
Here is Vlad Stefan's analysis of the second debate on Ephesians 3:9 which was posted on the Confessional Bibliology FB group:
Analysis Of James White's Views
In His Second Debate Versus Jeff Riddle:
00:23:00 - [UNBIBLICAL
PRESUPPOSITIONS] Mr White accuses the TR position of being circular and
irrational, and says that Dr Riddle will not use the same arguments he used in
the previous debate because the evidence is "non-existent" for this
reading as opposed to the previous one. Later @ 00:34:00 - Mr White talks about
reconstructing the modern eclectic text according to the principles of modern
textual criticism. His argument is basically that he is using a consistent
methodology that could reconstruct the current edition of the critical text
while TR proponents are not being consistent, and their methodology could not
reconstruct the TR.
The question is what is the
source of those principles? Mr White's principles of textual criticism are
completely unbiblical, based on man-made atheistic reasoning, treating the
Bible like any other text of history, presupposing the Bible has been corrupted
and needs to be reconstructed. The Confessional View's principles are based on
what scripture teaches regarding its own preservation, and a view of history
and the transmission of the text through these Biblical presuppositions. Which
view is more appropriate for a Christian? To stand on the authority of
scripture or on the authority of man-made atheistic falsely so-called
"science"?
Furthermore it is not
inconsistent for Dr Riddle to list the extant evidence available for any
particular reading. The evidence is simply a statement of fact. The fact is
that the TR does include some minority readings. If one believes based on one's
biblical presuppositions and a view of history through that biblical lens, that
the TR is the pure preserved Word of God, then one will believe that God's care
and providence was over the minority readings just as it was over the majority
readings. Providential preservation is not "inconsistent", it is what
the Bible plainly teaches as recognized by the Reformation-era divines.
Dr Riddle will go on to show that
the modern critical method is itself inconsistent with the application of its
unbiblical man-made "principles".
00:31:55 - [HYPOCRISY] Mr White
accuses Dr Riddle of not addressing him by name. But actually Dr Riddle has
addressed Mr White by name since at least September 2014 when Dr Riddle did the
first of many Word magazine episodes where he plays Mr White's teaching and
responds to it ( https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=83014816351 ).
What happened is that over the last 2 years as the Confessional View has gained
more prominence, Mr White refused to engage with any of the many hours of Word
magazines put out by Dr Riddle, but started making episodes of his podcast with
thinly veiled responses to Riddle and others, without naming them or including
links to their material. Dr Riddle comments on this during his later Word
magazines. Dr Riddle then started doing the same, referring to Mr White as
Popular Internet Apologist, giving Mr White a taste of his own medicine. But Mr
White behaving like a child started to whine about it like a total hypocrite;
Mr White can dish it out, but he can't take it.
00:37:50 - [FALSE CLAIM,
CONJECTURE] Mr White tells one of his famous stories, about how Erasmus
instructed his printer to use their own texts to fill in the section he was
missing, but the printer just used Erasmum' first edition. Where's the proof? I
have never seen concrete proof that the printers didn't use their own texts but
used his first edition without him knowing. Prove it Mr White. This is purely
conjecture that Mr White passes off as fact.
00:39:45 - [STRAWMAN] Mr White
compares Dr Riddle to infidel Muslims, Mormons. This is a common tactic used by
Mr White to strawman Confessional Text advocates as Muslims/Mormons/Ruckmanites
to enable him to easily burn and destroy the strawman instead of engaging the
real position, and to try to poison the well by getting the listeners to
identify the Confessional View with nonbelievers. The irony is that it is Mr
White's own view that is based in infidel atheistic rationalism, while the
Confessional View is based on what the Bible teaches concerning its own
preservation.
00:43:30 - [FAILED METHODOLOGY]
Dr Riddle correctly points out that the Confessional Text view is not a
reconstructionist view, that the modern textual critical method has failed to
reconstruct the text, that there simply is too many extant witnesses lost to be
able to reconstruct the ever-elusive originals. This is acknowledged by modern
textual critics, who are now only trying to find the "initial text"
floating aroundd the 2nd-4th century and have given up on getting back to the
originals. Mr White is still in denial that the goals of the methodology he has
adopted have now changed and the methodology itself is incapable of
reconstructing the originals. In contrast the Confessional View, based on what
scripture teaches about its own preservation, believes that God has preserved
the autographs in the faithful apographs, which the Reformers had in their day
and we still have today.
00:48:45 - [PRESUPPOSE VATICANUS]
Dr Riddle points out that the modernists decided in the 19th century to adopt
the new Ephesians reading prior to the papyri evidence; it was the weight given
to Vaticanus & Sinaiticus. Mr White loves to talk about his
"principles", "methodology" etc, but really the methodology
of modern textual criticism is all geared up to support Vaticanus. Mr White and
most modern critics are presuppositional; they presuppose Vaticanus and
witnesses that favor it. The entire logic, reasoning and "principles"
of modern textual criticism is designed to support Vaticanus.
00:51:30 - [INCONSISTENT MODERN
TEXTUAL PRINCIPLES] Dr Riddle points out that the modern critical method is
itself inconsistent; often modern critics will favor Vaticanus and witnesses
that support it, but at 2 Peter 3:10 they go with a reading that has absolutely
no Greek manuscript support, quite a subjective decision that goes against the
principles they apply elsewhere. Similarly at Revelation 5:9, they go with a
reading found in 1 witness, Alexandrinus. If the modern critical method can
select readings based on no extant Greek witnesses or 1 extant Greek witness,
why is it wrong for the TR to contain minority readings with only a few Greek
witnesses?
00:55:00 - [STRAWMAN, UNBIBLICAL,
FALSE CLAIM] Mr White does a huge epic strawman of the Confessional View. The
Confessional View believes God has preserved His Word using the men and the
means that God chose to do it. Mr White also says the TR was backtranslated
from the English, which is a false claim. Mr White equates the Bible to other
historical texts, thereby betraying his unbiblical atheistic presuppositions,
that he approaches the text of scripture just as he would approach the text of
Homer, the writings of Tacitus etc.
00:56:58 - [STRAWMAN] Mr White
says he wants you to make decisions regarding what is and isn't God's Word and
is glad that NA29 will enable that. But in practice if you see the evidence and
believe the TR, Mr White will strawman you like there is no tomorrow.
Ultimately Mr White wants to tell you what is and isn't scripture and you
better agree with him or else. Mr White then strawmans Confessional Text
advocates into Pope Sixtus and his Vulgate, another favorite strategy of his.
This is a strawman as the Confessional Text view is concerned with the
preservation of the original language texts not Latin, so this is a false
comparison. Mr White then goes to his Muslim strawman.
00:59:10 - [STRAWMAN] Mr White
claims that "kept pure in every age" means we must still possess
today early extant witnesses of our readings. This is false; it is the text
itself that is kept pure not the witnesses to the text. The Confessional View
is not a reconstructionist view. Further G.H Milne and others mentioned in the
analysis of the first debate clearly show that by "kept pure in all
ages" the Reformation Divines believed they had the autographs in the
apographs extant in their day.
01:06:28 - [INCONSISTENT,
UNBIBLICAL, HERESY, NOBIBLE, DEBATE OVER] - Mr White says that he is willing to
change his position on any text in the NT if "there was a discovery of
ancient documents that most scholars agreed makes something the earliest
reading." So basically any verse is up for grabs, and Mr White can never
preach with authority again. When Mr White stands up and says "The Bible
says", well, it says that today, but 100 years from now? 400 years from
now? Scholars could make some new discoveries and then believe those verses
aren't original. At this point the debate is over as Mr White has no Bible. Mr
White then says Dr Riddle's question is a false question then attempts to dance
around it. Mr White really starts to lose his cool and goes off the rails
during the subsequent questions. In contrast Dr Riddle maintains excellent
Christian character.
01:15:35 - [FALSE CLAIM,
CONJECTURE] Mr White says that the reading he prefers at Ephesians 3:9
"was the public possession of every generation up to the 15th
century?" This is a false statement as it is impossible for Mr White to
prove this as in order to prove this Mr White would need to have a complete and
total knowledge of all witnesses to the text of Eph 3:9 from when it was
written to the 15th century. As Mr White does not have this information he
cannot prove this; he can merely suggest it from the little extant evidence we
have, but this is simply conjecture. Mr White and modern critics often pass off
their conjectures as statements of fact.
01:19:30 - [APPEAL TO MAJORITY,
INCONSISTENT, UNBIBLICAL] Mr White appeals to the majority of witnesses, Dr
Riddle called him out on doing this before. Basically Mr White and other modern
critics will appeal to the majority when it suits them, but then appeal to
1/2/3 witnesses against the majority when it suits their preferred reading. Mr
White seems to mock the idea that God preserved His Word if the reading is a
minority reading, even though he often holds to minority readings himself. Dr
Riddle highlights that the Confessional View doesn't approach the text of
scripture purely naturalistically as any other man-made text but is based what
scripture teaches regarding God, His Word, etc. This seems totally foreign to
Mr White, who at this point is treating the Bible and speaking like a
nonbeliever.
01:25:07 - [UNBIBLICAL] Dr Riddle
highlights the difference in their views; that he will not apply the same
treatment to the Bible as to secular literature, because he is a Christian
whose approach to the scriptures is based on the scriptures. Mr White smirks
but is silent.
Conclusion:
===========
Mr White has no Bible. Any verse
is up for deletion or change in the future based upon new discovery and the
consensus of the scholars. Mr White can never again preach the Bible with any
authority, because even if he believes a verse is original today, his
successors might decide it is spurious in the future. Mr White mocks and
ridicules the idea that God preserved His Word in a minority reading, appealing
to the majority, but then will do a 180 turn and appeal to a distinct minority
of witnesses to defend his preferred readings.
