Heels and Horns and Horses

In October of 2020, James White and Jeff Riddle engaged in a Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text Debate – especially in reference to Mark 16:9-20 and Ephesians 3:9. In the debate White made an admission that keeps coming back to haunt him. Here is a question from Riddle and the answer by White.

Jeff Riddle: “Based on your method, if there were a discovery of ancient documents that most scholars agreed that this makes this the earliest reading, you would be willing to change your position on any text in the New Testament, based on evidence that might be uncovered? Is that correct?”

James White: “Yes!” (listen approximately 1:06:30 to 1:06:52)

When Peter Van Kleeck debated White on September 24, 2022, Van Kleeck pursued this line of questioning. White avoided the implications of the “Yes” answer he gave to Jeff Riddle. He simply refused to answer Peter Van Kleeck. He claimed “facts not in evidence,” asserted “asked and answered,” and otherwise danced around hoping no one would notice his unwillingness and inability to answer. Even in the debate with Riddle, after emphatically answering “Yes,” White later back-pedaled to try to avoid the implications of his answer. 

A short video created by Jeff Riddle – “James White and the Achilles’ Heel of Modern Textual Criticism” – highlights White’s willingness to use the “hypothetical” or “theoretical” implications of new manuscript discoveries when trying to use that argument against Riddle. However, he wants to avoid the implications of new manuscript discoveries when impaled on the horns of his own dilemma – both against Riddle and Van Kleeck. The problem for White is this. The “hypothetical” (or actual) discoveries do not touch the theological position of a settled text. Nevertheless, they (discoveries, whether hypothetical or actual) really throw a monkey wrench in White’s evidentiary position. “Yes,” White said to Riddle, “I would be willing to change my position on any text in the New Testament.” He is hoised with his own petard, whether he realizes it or not. (I think he realizes it, but tries to avoid it with sufficient obfuscating rhetoric.)

A theological bibliology based on what the Bible says about itself is not tossed to and fro by every wind of new discoveries. The evidential bibliology based on manuscript discoveries is necessarily so.

Unfortunately, the “Achilles’ Heel” of modern textual criticism has become the “Trojan Horse” of modern evangelical Christianity. May God expose it for what it is.