On this page you will find the most common claims made by James White about the Confessional Text Position with links to posts, audio/video resources, etc., that show that Mr. White just doesn’t know what he is talking about.  I will be using his most recent speech at the Coram Deo conference from April 5th, 2019.  You can watch it here:  Textual Traditionalism. The time in mm:ss format will be provided for his false claims.  Each claim will link through to the refutation of the claim.  Those without a link will be added later or will be dealt with inline if a post is unnecessary.

03:07 – The TR was a default Greek text

04:04 – Erasmus Rushed to Print

05:07 – Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum

06:54 – KJV translators didnt use handwritten mss

07:30 – KJV translators heavily influenced by Latin (no proof ever given)

07:53 – Erasmus half a dozen manuscripts

08:45 – No cataloging or collation of mss during the time of the Reformers.  (The TR is a collation of manuscripts.)

09:00 – Universities couldn’t communicate what Greek mss they had.  (They did have a cataloging system and they communicated with each other through letters.)  The cataloging system that existed before the current was most likely similar to the one used by Herman C. Hoskier that he mentions here.

10:00 Majority of Greek mss dated to after 900 A.D.

13:20 We have older manuscripts, so we can know more about the autographic text than the Reformers

13:47 – Papyri introduce nothing really new

15:53 – Mentions his debate with Bart Ehrman, but of course

16:55 – The papyri are important (See 13:47)

17:10 – We have more knowledge about the ancient text of the NT than any generation before us.  (See 13:20; also ignores the fact that the Reformers mentioned and used texts that are no longer extant.  Therefore it is impossible to substantiate this claim.)

18:00 – Claims Reformers would loved to have the 5800 Greek mss we do.  (Considering that they rejected the readings now favored by textual critics because those readings teach heresy, this claim is simply false.)

24:50 Claims we can prove the critical text of the NT we have today was the NT held to by the early church.  (This he cannot prove without recourse to verification through comparison with the autographic texts which we don’t have.)

30:00 Concerned about those who hold to the Confessional Text Position which he calls Textual Traditionalism

30:40 Upset that we don’t want to use Restorationist Textual Criticism.  (But why would we use something based upon atheistic reason that originated in the 17th century with the papist Richard Simon as an attack on Sola Scriptura.)

32:47 Mewls about being accused of being unconfessional because he rejects 1 John 5:7.  (But on the DL he admits he was called unconfessional because he rejects the historic understanding of WCF/2LBCF 1.8.)

34:10 Scrivener’s GNT based upon the AV implying that it could be a back translation.

35:00 Because the CJ wasn’t originally in Erasmus’ edition, this disproves its inclusion.  (Erasmus had anti-trinitarian leanings.  And if he had no qualms with printing his back-translation as is claimed, why didn’t he do that here?)

35:22 Claims earliest mss containing the CJ was from the 14th century and assumes this means it wasnt in other texts that are no longer extant.  (This is false.  Read here, here, & here)

42:28 – Again claims what Erasmus & the Reformers did is the same as RTC.  (This is just simply false.  The philosophy and methodology of RTC originated with the papist Richard Simon as an attack on Sola Scriptura.  And the Reformers, unlike the modern RTC advocates held to the Biblical Doctrine of Providential Preservation.)

43:44 – Claims we’re in a better position today than the Reformers because of the amount of data we have today.  (This is an explicit rejection of the doctrine of Providential Preservation.)

46:59 – Claims we’re asking for a perfect copy.  This is a lie

48:45 – Makes claims about the book of Revelation in the TR that can’t be proven.  The main claim is that Erasmus created readings that are so completely different that they’re different from everything else.  Mr. White also claims later that the Reformers never did any collation on the last 6 verses and took them as is and that the Aldine text is the same as Erasmus text.  The below charts shows that to be a gross over exaggeration.

 

 

48:56 – Rush to print myth & Back-translation myth

52:30 – Claims Confessional Text Position advocates have no consistent methodology.  (Our overall methodology is the doctrine of Providential Preservation.)

52:58 – Claims we use Kruger on canon.  We don’t.  We merely use his book to show he’s inconsistent.  Gaussen’s book on the Canon is contains the biblical doctrine of the canon over against Kruger’s unbiblical conclusions.

53:34 – Continues to ignore that our position is an affirmation of the Biblical Doctrine of Providential Preservation.  This doctrine is best explained in Garnet Milne’s Has The Bible Been Kept Pure?

53:55 – Claims that until this day, we could offer no significant challenge to the muslims and especially if we use the TR.  The Doctrine of Providential Preservation, and not an atheistic philosophical interpretation of history is how we defend the text of Scripture against those who reject it.

54:51 – Claims Erasmus & Beza would support him.  But their writings, and those of the other Reformers, show they did not affirm the philosophy and methods of Richard Simon.

55:59 – Everything following is simply his accusation that we are traditionalists in our argumentation when instead we affirm the Biblical Doctrine of Providential Preservation and believe Scripture should be our final authority in how we evaluate Greek mss and their variants.  Mr. White believes atheistic reasoning should be the standard.  Scripture condemns his position as foolishness.