James White, Inconsistency, & Lying

In James White by Chris ThomasLeave a Comment

##UPDATE#3 (29SEP2019):  On the Dividing Line from 24 Sep 2019, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA9aoDtJx08)  Mr. White attempted to deal with this post and failed multiple ways.  First, he equivocated between disputed texts and words only used once in Scripture.  But it is no surprise he engaged in a logical fallacy to support his position.  Second, he still fails to understand that his claim “we shouldn’t base doctrine on disputed texts”, is as I said in the first UPDATE tantamount to claiming the disputed text is not Scripture.  Mr. White seems unaware that Scripture states in 2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”  Why do I say he’s unaware of this verse?  Because it teaches that Scripture is profitable for doctrine.  But Mr. White believes we shouldn’t make doctrine from disputed texts.  Yet he claims he isn’t saying such verses are not Scripture.  This is a logical contradiction.  If we can’t make doctrine off of disputed verses, then disputed verses are not Scripture.  But if disputed verses are Scripture, then we are to make doctrine from them, thereby rendering them undisputed.  Mr. White is trying to have it both ways.  But he can’t without being inconsistent.

##UPDATE#2 (24SEP2019):  On the Dividing Line from 20 Sep 2019, Mr. White was made aware of this page, again.  He made two claims:  

  1. He claimed he had previously refuted me many times and that’s part of why he blocked me on Twitter.  Captain Deflector Hits a Truth Wall
  2. He claimed he was going to refute the claim that Luke 23:34 is original to Luke.  He’s already been refuted by Dr. Jeffrey Riddle on this issue 5 years ago.  Proof for Luke 23:34 

##UPDATE#1 (26DEC2017):  Mr. White has on his FB page challenged my assertion of his conclusion in the video.  I’ll be listening to the podcast again and will more explicitly lay out either why the 4th point is valid or if I feel he is correct and I have gone too far, I will amend point 4.  For now, I’ll add this, Mr. White has stated that we shouldn’t build theology upon a disputed text (~1:39:00).  This is tantamount to claiming the “disputed text” is not God’s word. (2 Tim 3:16)  While the first set of four points may change, everything that follows remains accurate.  Mr. White only offers speculation against accepting this verse as authentic.  Mr. White is an hypocrite for mewling about what he calls lies and slander when he has spent decades being a false witness that speaks lies against men like Dr. Theodore Letis, Dr. Joel Beeke, Dr. Jeffrey Riddle, et al.  (Proverbs 6:19)  Mr. White is still wrong for his assertion that the vast majority of manuscripts lack this verse.   (http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/10/word-magazine-29-james-white-luke-2334.html)  He is also wrong for claiming the evidence against the CJ is “truly conclusive”.  Again, nothing but speculation.  (http://confessionalbibliology.com/the-textual-issues/the-comma-johanneum/)

##UPDATE#2 (26DEC2017):  It was pointed out to me today by James E. Snapp Jr., that Mr. White’s claim that he has never said the verse is not original is in fact false.  Mr White clearly rejected this verse on his Sept. 4, 2008 Dividing Line.  (https://youtu.be/SnqC1GyRlpw).  Also, Mr. White may never have stated the words “This verse is not original”, but it is clear that he intends us not to treat it as original.  Kurschner has even gone so far in this episode to make the claim that the verse was in no 1st century mss.  A claim that he cannot substantiate.

Yesterday, 19 Dec 2017, Mr. James White* spent most of his Dividing Line critiquing a video made about him and his view that Luke 23:34 doesn’t belong in Scripture. The video was obviously satire, something that Mr. White seems unfamiliar with.

Mr. White’s rant:  https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2017/12/19/remembering-rc-then-refuting-more-textual-traditionalism/
Video:  https://youtu.be/0deEwz_BhvI

Now it is true that some of the claims in the video are unsubstantiated. Especially the idea that a Greek manuscript must be traced back to an apostolic church in order to be authentic. However, overall the satire of the video and it’s basic message, Mr. White has chosen unbelieving scholars over the Confessional Text View, were on point. Years ago, there was a cartoon about Dicken’s A Christmas Carol. The video that has caused Mr. White so much angst has the same feel and look. Even to the making of Dr. Bruce Metzger look like Marley from the Christmas Carol. This comparison betwixt the two however, was lost on Mr. White. And Dr. Metzger had the best line about how he is stuck forever haunting the YouTube Comments section. I make a point of highlighting the satirical nature of this video because of the following comment by Mr. White on the video in question, “This is not how you do scholarship.” A rather silly comment coming from him as the video has never claimed to be an exercise in scholarship. An even odder comment from Mr. White as he is himself not a scholar. However, his failure to understand the satirical nature of the video aside, Mr. White’s comments in this episode of the DL has provided an opportunity to deal with some defects of Mr. White that have plagued him for years.


Mr. White has long complained about inconsistency on his DL, calling it the sign of a failed argument. This to me is quite ironic considering his own inconsistency in the aforementioned DL. He repeatedly claimed that the facts prove that Luke 23:34 is not part of the original text. Here is his argument:

  1. Fact: P75 does not contain the verse
  2. Fact: Vaticanus does not contain the verse
  3. Fact: Other Greek mss do not contain the verse
  4. Fact: The verse is not original

Here’s the problem, Mr. White is being inconsistent by equivocating between facts and the opinions he draws from those facts. While the first 3 are indeed facts, the 4th is not a fact. There is no logical connection between the content of the documents Mr. White mentions and his opinion that the verse is not original. In claiming the 4th as a fact he has equivocated on the definition of the word “fact” and this is being inconsistent. What is necessary for Mr. White to avoid his inconsistency in point 4? Mr. White must first establish that the documents he prefers are authoritative above the documents which contain the verse. But how can he do this within the framework of Restorationist Textual Criticism? He cannot unless he demonstrates that at this point his preferred documents were accurately copied from the autographs. And he needs the autographs to accomplish this. In other words, Mr. White’s “facts” are in reality a set of facts and his arbitrary opinion which cannot be proven. Properly his argument is as follows:

  1. Fact: P75 does not contain the verse
  2. Fact: Vaticanus does not contain the verse
  3. Fact: Other Greek mss do not contain the verse
  4. These documents support my bias against the Confessional Text, Opinion:  therefore they accurately reflect the autographs.

But once you correctly frame his “fact” that Luke 23:34 is not original, his “argument” is exposed for what it is, mere opinion, and therefore utterly arbitrary.

Now one may ask, but how do you know that it is part of the original? By the Biblical doctrine of Providential Preservation, which teaches us that the Holy Ghost has borne witness to the authentic text throughout the history of the Universal Church. This is the same method by which we have received the Canon. And it is the way in which we have received the Canonical Text. So what are we to make of P75, Vaticanus, and other manuscripts that are missing the verse? The answer is obvious; they are corruptions of Scripture. And this should come as no great surprise for wicked men were corrupting Scripture at the time it was being composed (2 Cor 2:17). Mr. White’s failure, like all who are seduced by pseudo-scholarship, is that he replaces the foundation of Scripture with the vain opinions of wicked men. (The people who put together the UBS/NA GNTs are theological liberals, papists, and/or heretics). And in his attempt to claim we can use naturalistic methods and unChristian philosophy to accurately determine the Word of God, he forgets 1 Cor 2:14:  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Scripture must be our final authority in all things. And this includes how we approach Scripture. Mr. White denies that how we deal with manuscripts and their variants is a doctrinal issue. But we must turn to Scripture for instruction on how to deal with such issues lest we make ourselves an higher authority than God’s word.

Lying and Bearing False Witness

One of Mr. White’s complaints of the video is that he claims it slanders him and is filled with lies. This is quite rich coming from a man who has made his career out of lying and bearing false witness on the textual issue. We will touch on a few such issues in this post and will cover more in future posts.

Mr. White’s bearing of false witness against Dr. Theodore Letis

In an online interaction with the late Dr. Letis, Mr. White made the following false accusations against Dr. Letis:

  1. Claimed that Dr. Letis was an anti-trinitarian
  2. No friend of Baptists of any stripe
  3. That he was a Lutheran Theonomist

Reformed Baptist Pastor Jeff Pollard called on Mr. White to repent for his bearing of false witness. Mr. White has never done so. *http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/dismal_stuff1.pdf

Mr. White’s bearing of false witness against a Reformed Pastor from Georgia

In 2016 Mr. White bore false witness against a Reformed Pastor in the Facebook group the Reformed Pub. Even his own daughter said he was mistaken. Mr. White has yet to repent.

Mr. White’s lies about Erasmus

Mr. White continually makes claims about Erasmus that have either been proven false or the claim itself is impossible to substantiate.

  1.  Erasmus only had 6 Greek manuscripts. Sometimes Mr. White says 6 or 7, but it is usually 6. There is no factual evidence to support this claim. The purpose of such a claim is to denigrate the work of Erasmus in compiling from mss, a Greek New Testament for printing.
  2. Erasmus rushed to print. This myth was refuted back in the 1986 by M. A. Screech in his Introduction to the Annotations of Erasmus. As Mr. White claims to be a scholar, then he has no excuse for not knowing this. Furthermore, he is aware of Dr. Jeffrey Riddle taking him to task on this and other points. (http://confessionalbibliology.com/2017/09/10/erasmian-myths-the-rush-to-print/)
  3. Erasmus only included the Johanneum Comma because of a wager he made. H. J. de Jonge, an Erasmian scholar, has refuted this. Even the late Dr. Metzger retracted his claim due to the work of de Jonge. Mr. White, who slavishly follows Dr. Metzger, has no excuse for ignorance on this point. (http://confessionalbibliology.com/2016/03/02/erasmian-myths-the-comma-wager/)

Mr. White slandering the work of godly men

Mr. White has repeatedly claimed that those who hold to the Confessional Text View have no apologetic, no ministry, are not able to witness effectively to Muslims, etc. He has also for decades lumped the Reformers, men like Dr. Joel Beeke, Dr. Jeffrey Riddle, Rev. John Greer, David Silversides, Pooyan Mehrshahi, and the men of the Trinitarian Bible Society under the pejorative term King James Version – Onlyist. This is done to lump them into the same group as Dr. Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger. Furthermore, Dr. Joel Beeke regularly witnesses to Muslims with no issues. As does the Iranian Christian Pooyan Mehrshahi who translates Christian material into Farsi.

So when Mr. White mewls about slander and lies, he must first take the beam out of his own eye before worrying about the alleged speck in someone else’s eye.

*equivocation – The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument. (TSU – Dept. of Phil)

*I use the prefix Mr. and not Dr. as James White has never earned a doctorate. He bought his “doctorate” from the degree mill Columbia Evangelical Seminary. (http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/IRRBS-04-20-02.pdf) His so-called dissertation was the non-scholarly work, The Forgotten Trinity. Let’s also not forget his lying about his teaching work. (http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/04/update-the-fallout-begins-on-james-white-fudging-his-teaching-experience-by-peter-lumpkins.html)

Leave a Comment