In this episode Drs. Van Kleeck discuss Dr. Van Kleeck Jr.’s first cross examination in his recent debate with James White.
Debate Commentary: Van Kleeck’s First Cross Examination
Belief in Scripture to Change the World
Belief in Scripture to Change the World
Standard Sacred Text.com
Enjoying these follow-ups. Below are comments on a couple of places in the debate.
PVK: “Is the NA28 equal to the autographs?” (about 2:53)
JRW: “We believe that the NA28 represents the earliest text of the New Testament, and that every reading that was in the original autograph is found either in the text itself or in the footnotes at the bottom of the page.”
He also follows up by saying the autographic tradition is in the text or in the footnotes of the NA28. I think White misspoke here, since shortly afterward he says NA28 is not an exhaustive text and that the ECM would be a better thing to ask about. That certainly contradicts his answer that the NA28, in either the text or apparatus, contains the original autograph. If you have to go to the ECM to find it, it is not conclusively in the NA28. Which is it?
Additionally, if he did not misspeak, how could White make such a claim based on his own method? What White is saying boils down to the fact that God preserves the _physical media_ and it is up to man to figure out where the words are. On the other hand, “traditionalists” propose that God actually preserves his words. Since God superintended (yea, eternally decreed) the loss of the physical media that contained the original inspired writings (autographa) of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude, I do not find compelling the critical text proponents implication that preservation is really about God preserving “pieces of paper.”
Later, White clearly wanted to weave and dodge your question that would lead him to admit what he had admitted to Jeff Riddle in their debate. He circled all around it. Here is their exchange:
JTR: “Based on your method, if there were a discovery of ancient documents that most scholars agreed what makes this the earliest reading, you would be willing to change your position on any text within the New Testament based on evidence that might be uncovered. Is that correct?”
JRW: “Yes.”
It seems he wants to side-step this time in this debate. He wanders far and near but will not come to it. He knows how it turned out before.
White said that no two manuscripts are the same (“every manuscript they read was different from the same manuscript of the same book…” about 35:00) This actually contradicts his dodge when he tried to act like no new discoveries could provide evidence for the need to change a verse of scripture. For both of those statements of White (no 2 the same, and that he would not change) to be true, either (1) it is impossible to find any previously unknown manuscripts, or (2) it is impossible to find any previously unknown manuscripts which are different from the known manuscripts. IOW, if White is right that no two manuscripts are the same, and if it is possible to discover an unknown manuscript or manuscripts, then it logically follows that there can be evidence uncovered that could change any text — unless no new textual variants can ever be discovered.
James White here wants to avoid the necessary conclusion of his own method – while he can talk generically about the “vast majority” of the text being somehow (generically) without question, on the other hand there is no one specific verse of scripture about which he can explicitly have confidence of it not being a candidate for change. Not John 1:1. Not John 3:16. Not even John 11:35!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the comments, Robert. “He also follows up by saying the autographic tradition is in the text or in the footnotes of the NA28. I think White misspoke here, since shortly afterward he says NA28 is not an exhaustive text and that the ECM would be a better thing to ask about.” I totally agree with you on this point.
LikeLike
You’re welcome. Let me clarify a couple of things I noticed after the fact.
1. When I wrote about critical text proponents and God preserving “pieces of paper,” I should note two things. First, I believe those “pieces of paper” are preserved by God, from his eternal purpose. However, I would not claim that all of them are preserved for the same reason. And secondly, when critic text proponents speak or write about preservation of the manuscripts, they do no usually mean preservation in the same way I do. It seems to me that to them it is a mere accident of history that we still have the particular manuscripts that we have today. God would be involved in it in the same way he preserved the writings of Plato, Marcion, Polycarp, Hitler, Benjamin Keach, and Thomas Jefferson.
2. When I wrote “then it logically follows that there can be evidence uncovered that could change any text — unless no new textual variants can ever be discovered,” I mean that statement to be limited to those who follow the modern eclectic method. I do not expect any discoveries to change my text.
LikeLike