D A Waite comments on the Moorman-White Debate

The debate is now available for viewing again here. I'll listen again later but for now I'd like to post the notes taken on the debate by Dr. D. A. Waite, who was of course able to recognize implications of much of what was said that went over my head. These sorts of issues just don't get a fair hearing in a debate format. It would be nice to see a lengthy written exchange on them by chosen experts on both sides.

I have some objections to what Dr. Waite says, although overall I probably would agree with him if I knew enough.

Mostly I object to accusing Dr. White of lying. I hate it when evolutionists accuse creationists of lying -- it always turns out to be a matter of having different information, a different interpretation, or of simply making a mistake. Of course, since White does present himself as expert in all these issues, if he IS wrong it's hard to believe he merely made a mistake. Nevertheless, even if someone is lying, it seems to me we can't rightly say more than that a statement is wrong, not assuming anything about the person's intent.

I also think it's not quite right to accuse White of bragging when he mentions debating with Bart Ehrman, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Jesus Seminar and Muslims and the like. I think he's trying to establish that he's not the liberal ogre he probably feels the KJVOs make of him, but is known for his strongly conservative Christian views, which contending with such opponents should demonstrate.[However, it later occurred to me that by bringing this up as often as he did perhaps his intention was to covertly associate Dr. Moorman and the KJVO position in general with cultists -- sneaky if so].

Since I'd like to see the substantive issues clearly raised and answered, I've reduced the font for the bragging comments so the others will stand out more.

REMARKS ON THE MOORMAN/WHITE DEBATE (2/2/11)
By Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D. Ph.D.
Bible For Today Baptist Church
900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, NJ 08108
Phone: 856-854-4747; E-Mail: BFT@BibleForToday.org
Website: BibleForToday.org

I. COMMENTS ON JAMES WHITE’S 20-MINUTE OPENING
REMARKS FROM THE FIRST 40-MINUTES OF THE DEBATE:

1. Bringing in Bart Ehrman’s debate had nothing to do with this theme. IT IS BRAGGING.

2. Manuscripts differ, but the TR MSS have minute differences only; whereas his Vatican and Sinai MSS have hundreds and even thousands of differences. In the Gospels alone, they differ in over 3,000 significant places.

Yes, and Burgon points this out as part of the evidence for their corruption.

3. White claims to believe in the “inerrancy of Scripture,” but where is his “inerrant Scripture”?

4. Debating a Muslim has nothing to do with this theme either. IT IS BRAGGING.

5. Debating a man from the Jesus Seminar has nothing to do with this theme either. IT IS BRAGGING.

6. He believes the “Bible is the Word of God,” but which Bible is it, and where is it?

How White and others on his side understand the inerrancy of scripture and the Bible as the word of God does need to be spelled out clearly in relation to the understanding of the KJVO. Obviously they regard many of the current versions as qualifying, with possibly some exceptions. Since the KJV translators regarded the previous English translations as all the word of God despite their needing some revision, this is a fair position to take on principle. The question becomes significant in the context of the contention that the modern versions are all based on corrupt manuscripts and all contain English terms chosen merely for the sake of distancing them from the KJV.

7. He said there was “not a Greek text in the entire world that reads like the Textus Receptus” that Pastor Moorman had. He had the TBS edition of Dr. Scrivener’s Greek text which is the edition of Beza 5th edition, 1598. This is a lie.

It would be good to know the particular facts each side has in mind in this case. As I understand it there are some minority readings in the Textus Receptus, and at least one that isn't in any Greek text -- that the translators nevertheless thought right to include -- but these facts don't justify the blanket statement made by White.

8. He lied horribly when he stated that Dr. Scrivener “created a Greek text that no one had ever seen before Scrivener created that in the 19th century.” It was Beza’s 5th edition, 1598. Scrivener did not create anything.

9. He refused to allow Dr. Moorman’s name of “Byzantine text” as a synonym for the T.R., twisting it to mean only the so-called “Majority Text” (which is not a “majority”of anything) of Hodges and Farstad which has over 1800 differences from the T.R.

10. Stevens 1550 text is NOT the “textus receptus” of today. It is Beza’s 5th edition, 1598 (48 years after Stevens’ 1550.)

11. He said Stevens. Erasmus, and Beza’s texts were the texts that were used for the KJB. It was principally Beza’s 5th edition of 1598 that was used, not the other two.

I would trust Dr. Waite on this. These are all simple questions of facts that ought to be easy enough to establish, however.

12. He lied when he said the KJB translators “did not make a decision to reject anything.” They most certainly did reject the various versions then at hand that were based on the Gnostic Critical Greek Text of Vatican and Sinai and favored the versions that used the Traditional Received Text.

I've certainly heard this and believed it and now also tend to trust Dr. Waite's statement. Again, in a debate you don't get enough information to decide such questions for sure. We need the evidence, the references.

13. He lied when he said Erasmus had only “half a dozen to a dozen manuscripts.” Erasmus visited many libraries throughout Europe and consulted from 100 to 200 other manuscripts as well.

Again I tend to trust Dr. Waite.

14. The Nestle-Aland (NA) text prefers and uses earlier manuscripts than the TR from the point of view of the age of the material on which they are written. Though the age of the material on which they are written is earlier, the WORDS which are written on that material of the Vatican and Sinai are much later than the WORDS of the TR which go all the way back to the original WORDS of the N.T

Interesting if so. I haven't heard this elsewhere myself.

15. He said “The pilgrims detested the King James translation.” “Detested” is
too strong. They didn’t use it at first, but what is his proof that they “detested” it

Yes, what is the proof?

16. Again White brought up that he debates Bart Ehrman and Muslim scholars all around the world. HE’S BRAGGING AGAIN.

17. He said he would have debated Erasmus had he lived in his day. MORE BRAGGING. Would Erasmus want to debate with James White?

18. He pointed to his Stevens and his Erasmus Greek texts he had and said they don’t agree always. But the KJB translators used Beza’s 5th edition 1598, 82 years
after Erasmus and 48 years after Stevens.

Again a question of fact that ought to be easily enough established and agreed upon by both sides.

19. He was in error that Sinaiticus was not found in or near a trash can. In fact, it was found in the area where the monks were getting ready to burn it. Tischendorf rescued it and later bought it.

I mentioned this myself in a previous post. Burgon says clearly that it was found in a waste basket and gives a reference to Tischendorf's account. The actual quote from Tischendorf is still needed.

Later: So I checked Wikipedia on Codex Sinaiticus, where Tischendorf himself is said to have reported finding it in a waste basket but that his claim is disputed by the monastery (the information starts halfway down the page). So Burgon was reporting what Tischendorf wrote.

Now, White may have decided the monastery was right and therefore disbelieves Tischendorf, but it is plainly unfair of him to flatly contradict Tischendorf's own report and imply that his opponents are misinformed. Bad show, Dr. White!

20. Pointing to his favorite Nestle-Aland text, he lied when he said, “That text right there is not based simply on Aleph and “B.” It most certainly is. It is “B” (Vatican) and Aleph (Sinai) when it agreed with Vatican. He would be hard pressed to cite examples of the NA disagreeing with these two Gnostic heretical documents.

But isn't White simply saying it isn't ONLY based on Aleph and B but also on other manuscripts? A misleading thing to say if so but strictly speaking not false.

21. White mentioned debating Bart Ehrman again. MORE BRAGGING.

22. He lied when he said there are no “Byzantine” readings prior to the 4th or 5th century.” There are MSS going back to the 2nd century attesting to Mark 16:9-20 for example which is omitted from B and Aleph. There are also versions or translations that contain Mark 16:9-20 that go back to the 2nd century. There are also quotations from the early church fathers that quote Mark 16:9-20 that go back to the 2nd century.

Yes, as I recall, Burgon has documented all this.

23. He lied when he said that these manuscripts did not come from Alexandria, Egypt. The Gnostic Vatican and Sinai manuscripts certainly did come from Alexandria.

Probably also in Burgon?

24. He denied the multitude of heretics (Gnostics) in Alexandria by using one man (Athanasius) that we know was not a heretic and was from Alexandria.

Yes, I've seen this used by others in this debate too. A really cheap shot, Dr. White!

25. He challenged Dr. Moorman to prove that these MSS (Vatican and Sinai) were influenced by, or tinged by “any heretic that you can name.” Origin is one clearly who doctored the N.T. MSS. And many other Gnostics are named by Dean Burgon in his CAUSES OF CORRUPTION book. He gives strong evidence for the perversion of the Traditional Text by many Gnostic heretics.

I want to read that book eventually. But Burgon says quite a bit on this in Revision Revised too.

26. White says he debates Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Unitarians all the time on the deity of Christ. MORE BRAGGING.

Again I'll comment as I did above that I doubt this is bragging, more likely intended as evidence that he is a conservative Bible-believing Christian, since KJVOs often attack the character of their opponents.

27. He lied when he said that the “modern translations, based on the Nestle-Aland 27th edition text are in much better shape to defend the deity of Christ than if you are utilizing the Byzantine text.” Take 1 Timothy 3:16 as just one example of denial of the deity and incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

28. He did not give the manuscript evidence in strong favor of “GOD” was manifest in the flesh versus “HE WHO” appeared in a body. Only 6 or 7 MSS are for either HO or HOS, and scores are for the reading of THEOS. He has lied about this important verse that was doctored by the Gnostic heretics of Alexandria. Dean Burgon has around 75 pages defending THEOS beginning on page 424 of his Revision Revised (BFT #611 @ $25.00 + $7.00 S&H).

29. He lied when he said HOS meant “HE WHO.” It means only “WHO” as a relative pronoun. The “HE” has been added in the NASV and in other versions that do not have THEOS. THEOS was not added 700 years later. It was the original reading which was changed to HOS or HO by Gnostic heretics who denied the Deity of Christ.

30. He lied when he said that John 1:18 does not have a reference to the deity of Christ when it has “only begotten Son.” This is deity. “Only begotten God” adheres to the Gnostic teaching that Christ was a created being rather than having eternal pre-existence.

I had moments of cognitive dissonance listening to White on these things too. I'm sure Waite is correct.

31. He said we in our day have “grown in the knowledge of the Greek language” as if the KJB translators didn’t know Greek very well. This implication is false. We have become dumber and dumber in our day.

Certainly my impression from reading Burgon and reading about the credentials of the KJV translators, and from encountering seminary-trained people debating on these issues who flatly disagree with the KJV translators and with Burgon. They believe they know more and have a right to judge, but the evidence is against them.

32. He lied when he said that the KJB translators were much more familiar with Latin than with Greek or Hebrew. They knew all three languages fluently–more so than our present men.

Another cognitive dissonance moment for me here too. From what I've read the KJV translators were educated in many languages far beyond most scholars since them, many from childhood.

33. “Our God and Saviour” means Christ was God. One of the meanings of KAI is “even” which identifies the Saviour as being God. He muddied the waters here as well in slamming the KJB translation.

Don't remember this.

34. He wrongly demanded that the same Greek word should ALWAYS be translated the same. The KJB made it a point to VARY the English words depending on the context. This is called polysemy.

Yes, Burgon points this out and denounces the 1881 Revisers for stupidity and insensitivity to the task of translation, the task of preserving the sense in the idioms of the target language, that is, for creating an idiotic klutsy rendering of English.

35. Romans 9:5 is clear to the deity of Christ, yet he questioned the clarity of the KJB here.

Hard to see what's unclear about it:

Ro 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

36. He throws out Revelation 16:5 HOLY vs. SHALL BE which is but a distraction. He said that Beza made a conjectural emendation. How does he know this? Where is his proof? I deny this.

Yes, how? A matter for evidence again.

37. He lied when he said that the vast majority of the Traditional text MSS came only 1,000 years after Christ. No, that text formed the original readings as shown by early versions and quotes from church fathers..

The evidence, especially as mustered by Burgon, does show this.

38. The reason that the Received Text was more popular was because it was the true text of the apostles and had been copied and re-copied by true believers from apostolic times.

Yes, this is the only explanation that makes sense.

39. He said, if we only had one manuscript, we would have to trust that it had not been tampered with. That is exactly what James White has, basically, just one manuscript, the VATICAN. And it has been tampered with by the Gnostic infidels of Alexandria.

If we DID have only one, yes we would have to trust that it had not been tampered with, we'd have to trust God on that. But God didn't leave us with only one, but with thousands of witnesses, against which the Alexandrians are an extreme minority and so different among themselves it's amazing they have been elevated to such prominence.

40. Nowhere did White mention that his minority text of 45 or so MSS do not have continuity from the apostolic times to the present. It ceased being copied after 500 or 600 A.D. because the Christians knew it to be false and refused to copy it. Hence there are only 45 or so manuscripts that are in favor of that false Gnostic text, and over 5,200 are in favor of the Traditional true text.

The most sensible explanation of the actual manuscripts on hand.

I'll save the rest of his notes for the next post.