Almighty God, blessed art thou, Thou alone, never failing, Get rid of their organs, they get rid of their choirs. So you have a tiny little reformed Baptist movement in this country of about two dozen dead musicless churches. Because if you have any wavering in your confidence about the integrity of your translation of the Bible, it will suck the conviction right out of your heart. And that leads to some very interesting, heretical, and very important conclusions. Hello, and welcome to another episode of Word Magazine. This is Jeff Riddle. I am a pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Charlottesville, Virginia. Today is Friday, August the 29th of 2014. Well, last week's Word magazine drew its fair share of attention as I presented a review response to a clip from Wretched TV, I guess it's called. of some Q&A with Reform Baptist apologist James White regarding text criticism and KJV-onlyism. I got a lot of feedback on last week's presentation. I heard comments from people who said they were encouraged by my presentation. I got at least one nasty comment posted on my blog. from a, quote, Christian, end quote, brother, an obvious James White defender who was appalled that I had the audacity to question his analysis and expertise. And it's a good thing to moderate your comments on your blog. So that one didn't see the light of day. I got a response from James White himself. He offered a response to at least a small part of my comments. I'll come back to that in a moment. I thought that was a bit strange. What he chose to respond to, but he did a video flow presentation on the Coma Johannam, but he ignored the large part, the meat of really what my review was about, but I'll come back to that in a moment. Also interesting, I was contacted by some folk associated with a small but respected Christian publisher who have asked if I might be interested in completing a book or a booklet on the topic of the traditional text. And so I'm in the process of discussing this with them, and I guess they're discerning if this would be a good thing for me to do, and I'm likewise discerning if it would be good for me to steward my time in that area. So we'll see what happens. I may end up writing something much more extensive on this in the future. It is kind of interesting when someone comes up with a direct response to something that you've said. This actually ended up being the second time that my name has shown up on James White's Alpha and Omega Ministries website. be aware of this that about four years ago I had a friend email me one morning and say have you taken a look at James White's blog and I went there and took a look at it and sure enough there was a post and I forget the exact title of it because the links have now been broken to it but I think it was called a response to Jeff Riddle So, when you see something like that, it's a little frightening. But that was a post, again, four years ago that was a response to a review that I had done of the English Standard Version. I had done a short blog post on the ESV and then I had recorded the review and put it on Sermon Audio. and four years ago the response wasn't from James White but it was from a young man named Jamin Huebner who had an apologetics ministry called Real Apologetics and it had a website and he was affiliated somehow with James White and he posted a series of criticisms of my ESV review and then I offered a number of rejoinders. And unfortunately, since that time, Mr. Huebner has closed down his apologetics ministry and is not apparently not doing apologetics anymore. I don't know exactly why, but after he broke off his association with James White, all his posts were, I think, were apparently removed. And all the links were broken to the post that he had made attacking my views on the ESV. So, I'm sorry that happened. So, that's not there as a resource anymore. You might also be interested, the little blurb that plays before. The Word magazine begins where I have the hymn, A Mighty Fortress is Our God, and a few comments. The first one is John Piper, the second one is John MacArthur, but the last one is Jameen Huebner. And that comment that he made about my views being interesting but heretical was made in a podcast that he did when he used to have the Apologetics website, and I'm guessing that that podcast is probably no longer available either. I just have a little snippet of it. So it's interesting when somebody responds directly to your comments. I also had this happen recently. I did a book review of Tom Chantry and David Dykstra's book, Holding Communion Together, and Tom Chantry gave a response to my review and it was titled a response to Jeff Riddle and it's on his blog and I haven't yet had a chance to offer a response to Tom Chantry's response to my review of his book. I did think that Tom Chantry's response was very gracious and so I do want to interact a little bit with his response. James White, his video was not as charitable. He seemed to take offense at the review. He posted it on Monday, August the 25th. Someone pointed it out to me on Tuesday morning. I listened to it while I was doing some other things. on Tuesday morning and so I just I listened to the audio and I didn't watch the video and then later that evening I watched the video along with the audio and that was enlightening to see the facial expressions and to be able to see the text and the graphics that he put up but so I've listened to it just twice those two times and I thought it might be helpful to offer some responses to some of what James White said. If I could, I would summarize White's responses in four points. First, he protests against the occasion of my review. That is, he believes that my review of the wretched clip was, he actually called it, he said, it felt like a cheap shot. And I certainly want to respond to some of that. He says that I should have interacted with his written material, and by that I'm sure he means his book, The KJV Only Controversy. Secondly then, he responds by addressing the Koma Yohaneum, and he takes exception to the really brief comments that I made on that. I didn't really say anything about the Koma Yohaneum until one hour into my review. I'll come back to that as well. Thirdly then, he takes exception to the comments that I made about conjectural emendations That can be found in the modern critical text, particularly at Acts 16.12 and at 2 Peter 3.10. And here he also raises a new issue in the discussion, that is the text of Revelation 16.5 in Beza, and then also as that was continued in the King James Version. And I noticed that he has also spent a significant amount of time reviewing those two texts in particular, Acts 16.12 and 2 Peter 3.10 on his dividing line. And I have not listened to those yet. I will listen to them. I'm interested in what he has to say. But as I'll come back to, I think he sort of misses the point of what I was trying to say with that. Then, fourthly, the fourth point, and this is a very interesting one that he raises, he raises a concern about consistency and apologetics. He obviously bristled at the charge of inconsistency. He says he doesn't like being accused of being inconsistent. and he sort of turns the tables and accuses anyone who prefers the Textus Receptus of being inconsistent, and he even suggests, this is interesting, that anyone who holds to support for the traditional text cannot pursue meaningful apologetics. And I take it by that that he means that you really can't engage in meaningful ministry. You can't go toe-to-toe with the Bart Ehrmans out there or the John Dominic Croissants, he says, unless you hold to the modern critical text. And if you're still holding to the traditional text, you're just going to get eaten alive out there. And I want to respond to that as well. For the sake of time, we're going to cover a lot of ground here. I'm going to try to address those four points. And I'm going to address the first point by reviewing the opening seven minutes or so of James White's video flow response, again, that was titled The Coma Johann Aum, Reform Baptists and Doing Apologetics. That's August 25, 2014. I'll put a link to it so you can watch it in total. So I'm going to flow that for the first seven minutes or so. And while doing that, I'll address the first point, his criticisms of the very fact that I was reviewing this video and not dealing with his written material. And then I think I'm just going to, for the final three points, I'm not going to rely on the playback of the video. I'm just going to offer some comments. I may play a little clip at the end about apologetics. But anyway, let's proceed and look at these four points together. So the first point is he is critical of the fact that I reviewed this short wretched TV clip. He says it felt like a cheap shot and that instead I should have interacted with his written material. And let me just say off the cuff that I have read a number of James White's books. I have read the KJV Only Controversy. Unfortunately, I do not have the new edition of it. I'm going to order it. I haven't done it yet. I have the first edition. I read it a long time ago, and then I reread it in, I think, about 2008 or so. And believe me, my copy of it has got a lot of marks in it. And I've read several other books by James White. I've read The Potter's Freedom. I've read his book on justification, his book on sola scriptura, his book on same-sex marriage and Roman Catholicism. And I've often commended these books. Again, let me say with all charity that I have much appreciated a lot of James White's ministry and his apologetics. But I also must say forthrightly that I respectfully disagree with him in the area of text criticism. Again, I've never written a book review of any of James White's works. I do quite a bit of academic work, book reviews. I have, I think, well over 30 published articles and book reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals like Interpretation, Puritan Reform Journal, Perspectives in Religious Studies, American Theological Inquiry, Faith and Mission. So I do quite a bit of review work. Many of you know that I edit the Reformed Baptist Trumpet, which is a quarterly e-journal. And I do usually at least one book review per quarter that appears there. And then that's in addition to scores of other reviews that I've done on my blog or informal reviews. I know I have never done an academic review of James White's works, but I am familiar with them. One of my responses would be that I don't think that my review of his video clip misrepresented his writings. And I'll give some citations to back that up in just a moment. It also seems like James did not grasp, maybe he said he listened to it on my presentation on double speed and maybe he was riding his bike or whatever. But maybe he didn't grasp that the occasion for me offering the review was a friend of mine, someone who reads my blog and someone who actually lives in another state, had emailed me months ago after this wretched clip had shown up on YouTube and he knew that I accept and defend the traditional text and he wanted my response. to that video clip in particular and to the issues that James White raised. So that's why I chose that clip. Really, the context was I was trying to perform an act of service and ministry to my friend and others just by offering a review, a succinct review to James White's comments. What would a supporter of the traditional text say to the kind of challenges that James White offered? So that was the occasion. My purpose was not to offer a review of James White's academic works, but to his comments that were made in that video. I'm aware of the fact that the Trinitarian Bible Society has in production a review, a response, a book-length response to James White's The KJV Only Controversy, which he says has been out some 20 years, nearly 20 years now. And I know the fellow who is doing that. His name is Albert Hemed, H-E-M-E-D. He is a free Presbyterian scholar who works for the Trinitarian Bible Society. He is in Israel where his main work is completing a Hebrew Bible translation of the New Testament, a modern Hebrew Bible translation that follows the traditional text. And I know at some point there are plans for his a critique or response to James White's KJV-only controversy book. It'll be published. It'll be very interesting when that comes out. Undoubtedly, I'll try to do a review of it, response to it at some point. But anyway, be that as it may, I was a bit baffled by James' response. But let me go ahead and play, again, some of what he said in the opening to this ScreenFlow presentation. So this morning at Confessing Baptist, one of the first things I got in Twitter when I got up this morning was a link to an article, an audio that was posted at Confessing Baptist this morning. Jeff Riddle interacts with James White's answers to issues related to sexual criticism. Let me just say that, you know, the Word magazine was first put on Sermon Audio and then I did a blog on my blog. I did a blog post at Jeff Riddle And then my friends at Confessing Baptist, as they sometimes do, put that material up on their site and so it didn't originate at the Confessing Baptist site. Those fellows don't necessarily endorse all my ideas and I respect that. They don't have to. So I don't want to get them in hot water with anyone. These were my ideas and they just simply put my word magazine up there. Along with just a brief summary that's been posted here. There's a lot that could be said in response to this. I was disappointed, very disappointed. Instead of interacting with a book that I wrote what 19 years ago. It's been out at least that long. I actually wrote it 20 years ago. It took a while to get it out. But this has been used as a textbook for all that time. It has all the references, hundreds of footnotes. And instead of interacting with my actual presentation, which was fairly lengthy, it's only about a snippet that Todd Freel posted where he's asking me a single question about King James only. Well, again, James, my purpose was to respond to my friend who had called my attention to the wretched video clip. So I wasn't attempting to give an elaborate response to your written works or even to the longer wretched presentation. I haven't even watched it, to be honest with you. But my purpose was just to respond to the things that you said in the video clip. Now, you seem to be saying that that was an informal response and if I looked at your written material I would find all the documentation, etc. Let me respond to that. Again, I had read your book and what you said in the clips seemed to be consistent with what you've written. Also, I spent an hour in that clip in my response to the Word Magazine episode 25, and I responded primarily to two things that were in your presentation. One is the perpetuation of the idea that Erasmus rushed the first edition of his printed Greek New Testament of 1516 to print in order to beat the Completion polyglot. And I pointed out the research of the Erasmus scholar M.A. Screech who called that a fantasy and a legend. And I find it interesting that you have given no response to that. And the second thing is I pointed out that you perpetuated the idea that Erasmus only had one copy of Revelation and the one copy that he had was missing the last, I mean you said six verses, I pointed out that Metzger says it was missing the last six verses, Roland Bainton says it was missing the last five. As far as I've been able to tell, the source for this is an 1861 German work by Franz Delitzsch, and it may be accurate, I don't know, but I was pointing out that there were no references in Metzger, in Bainton, And I can add also in your written works to the writings of Erasmus himself regarding the ending of Revelation. Like I said, it may turn out that that's accurate and there may be something to be said about that. I also pointed out that if you look at any one of the various editions of the TR and compare that with the modern critical texts of the ending of Revelation, that the TR does not render a lot of weird or bizarre readings. There are some differences, but if it was back translated, Erasmus basically back translated the majority or Byzantine version of Revelation. Now, again, you say This was unfair because I dealt with just two brief comments and not to what you had written. Well, let me address that. First of all, the rush to publish the Erasmus rush to publish idea. I've got again, unfortunately, I don't have your revised edition and maybe it's different. I don't know. But I'm looking at the copy that I have, which I guess is the is the initial edition of it. And this is on pages 15 and 16. You say, quote, Froben encouraged Erasmus to hurry with this work, with his work rather, possibly because he had heard that Cardinal Jimenez had already printed his Complutensian polyglot, which included the Greek New Testament, and was merely waiting for approval to arrive from Rome before publishing his work. Time was running out to be the first to actually publish the Greek New Testament. As a result, the first edition of Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum, the new instrument, was hardly a thing of beauty. And as soon as it was printed, Erasmus had to get to work editing the second edition. It was so hastily printed that Erasmus himself said it was precipitated rather than edited and that it was hurried out headlong since he was unwilling to wait for papal approval. He took a big gamble and dedicated his work to Pope Leo X, the same pope who excommunicated Martin Luther, hoping that the dedication would effect any reprisals for his rushing his work to press. The gamble worked and Erasmus had the first published Greek text on the market. So that quote starts on page 15 and goes on to page 16. Again, that's what you wrote, that's your written material, and that's what you said in the presentation. And by the way, when you look at the footnotes, here, like for example, the little statement, precipitated rather than edited, it's footnote 7, and on page 18, you give the Latin quotation, pracipitatum veris quam editum, But there's no source citation. You don't tell us where that can be found in the writings of Erasmus. And just one general criticism, again my purpose is not to offer a detailed criticism of your written works, but one criticism that could be offered of the KJV only controversy, I'm not sure maybe it changed in your updated edition, is you show primary dependence on secondary sources and not primary sources, particularly with your discussion of Erasmus. You seem to be dependent upon secondary biographies of Erasmus, and you don't interact with Erasmus's primary works. And again, you did not respond, you've not yet responded to M.A. Screech's critique of New Testament scholars who perpetuate what he calls fantasies or legends regarding Erasmus, particularly with regard to rushing his printed Greek New Testament into print. Secondly, again, the second thing that I talked about was the ending of Revelation. And, again, the rushing to print and the ending of Revelation, I spent the first hour talking about that. The comments that I made about the Koma Yohaneum were very brief, just a few minutes, but for some reason that's what you chose to respond to. I think I probably know why, because I would grant that support for the Koma Yohaneum is one of the most difficult and challenging things for those who support the traditional text. So it's a weak point, and maybe in some ways you're wise to attack a weak point, but I was surprised and disappointed that you didn't respond to really the points that I spent more time on, and that was you're perpetuating the idea that Erasmus rushed to print and putting forward the ideas about the ending of Revelation. Again, which may be true, but I haven't yet been able to find anyone who gives primary source documentation on that. With regard to the ending of Revelation, though, let me turn once again to your book, your written material. This is on page 18 of the King James Only controversy. Page 18, this is footnote number 5, where you wrote, First it was Roiclin who lent Erasmus his sole copy of the Book of Revelation, which Erasmus used in the production of his Greek text, which became known over a century later as the Texas Receptus. It was Roikland's text that was missing the last section of Revelation, forcing Erasmus to translate from Latin into Greek for the last six verses! So, what you said in the video is precisely what you said in your written material. So I don't think it was a cheap shot to interact with what you said in the video when it was precisely what you said in the written material. By the way, that information in the footnote on page 18 doesn't have any source citation for the Roikland anecdote and the missing ending of Revelation anecdote. I'm assuming you're dependent upon Metzger there, possibly on Bainton, but I would assume Metzger because you say six verses, whereas Bainton says it was five verses. So anyways, I don't think the charge that I didn't fairly deal with your published work is accurate. Let me listen to a little bit more of James' opening response to my Word magazine. Again, this was a cheap shot comment. I just quoted you from your book. What you said in writing is what you said in the video, so I'll leave it at that. That's really how I felt it was. I mean, I've discussed this stuff for decades now. Why go for a few snippets hurriedly answered at the end of a longer presentation? You know, for example, Pastor Riddle says, and I'm just following after Metzger and stuff, if you go to the book, you'll find all these references to Erasmus biographies and histories and articles and stuff like that. Notice, I think he's aware of the fact that he doesn't have much interaction in the book with Erasmus' primary material. Notice he said biographies and articles, etc. But what he didn't mention was interaction with the writings of Erasmus himself, particularly the Novum Instrumentum. Again, there's no response to the critique of M.A. Screech. So anyways, I'll leave that as it is. So it put me off along those lines. But be that as it may, I realize there are Reform Baptists that are TR only. I think it's primarily because they've been reading Turgeon and lots of folks like that. Great men of God. But when it comes to textual criticism, if anyone wrote before the discovery of the papyri, what they had to say isn't all that relevant anymore, to be perfectly honest. Alright, so this is something new, and I want to respond to this. James White says, first of all, that those who hold to support for the traditional text, the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Texas Receptus of the Greek New Testament, that we're primarily influenced by Turritan, and by that he means Turretin, the successor to Calvin, and a systematic theologian who influenced a lot of Reformed theology, and so it's just sort of we're lost back in, I guess, the theological past, if we hold to the traditional text. But then he makes this statement that I really found astounding. He says that unless you write about text criticism after the discovery of the papyri, then you're not really doing legitimate text critical work. And I was taken aback by that on a couple of levels. For one thing, this ignores the fact, as I said in my first podcast on this topic, that the Reformers were largely aware of the major text-critical issues in the New Testament. Read again the commentaries of Calvin, read Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, other Puritan exegetes, and you'll find that they were aware of the major textual issues like the Perikope Adulteri, like the longer ending of Mark, the papyri discoveries have not been that earth-shaking as far as our discovery of and awareness of what the major textual issues were. Also, James White, even though he's written and for decades has taught on text criticism, also doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that the challenges to the traditional text came in the 19th century before the papyri discoveries. The challenges to the Texas Receptus of the New Testament again came long before the papyri discoveries and it's striking that a man who is supposed to be an expert in this area isn't aware of this. I picked up a book from my shelf. It is titled, The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters. This is a book that is edited by Eldon J. Epp and George W. McRae. It was put out by the Society of Biblical Literature, Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia in 1989. And when I was a graduate student in New Testament, we had to read this book, and it's basically an introduction to various fields of New Testament study. Right at the beginning of the work, there is an article that is written by Eldon J. Epp. E.J. Epp, or Eldon J. Epp, was one of the most respected modern critical text scholars of the 20th century. He definitely was a supporter of the modern critical text. He's not somebody who was friendly to the TR. He's not a KJV onlyist, but he has been considered to be an expert in the field. Anyway, his article here on text criticism is actually drawn from some papers that he did at annual meetings of the SBL, the Society of Biblical Literature, in 1980-1981. And in this article, he gives an overview, a historical overview, of the history of the study of the critical study of the text of the New Testament. And he notes within that work that the groundbreaking work that undermined the Texas Receptus was Karl Lachman's Greek New Testament of 1831. So he says 1831 was the key point. And he notes that Lachman's method relied upon his study of the oldest Greek unciels. So, he relied upon the unciels and then upon his study of the various versions. He neglected the minuscules, but on the basis of his study of those, not papyri, but on the basis of his study of the unciels, he came to the conclusion that the traditional text should be overthrown and he came up with a modern critical text. And then you well know that in 1881 Westcott and Hort came out with theirs from which the revised version English translation was made that becomes the mother of the RSV and the NRSV and the ESV. But here's the point I would go further. This is on page 83, again, of the New Testament as Modern Interpreters, this article by Eldon J. Epp, which is simply titled Textual Criticism, where he describes how the papyri and when the papyri were discovered and how they became influential. It's a long paragraph, but I'm going to read it. Quote, it was, as a matter of fact, just 50 years ago, and he's writing in 1989, It was just 50 years after the Westcott Hort edition that the next landmark appeared, for in 1930, 1931, Chester Beatty acquired the famous papyri that bear his name, notably for our purposes, P45, P46 and P47 and the London Times of 19 November 1931 carried the first public announcement of the discovery. These were the first early and extensive New Testament papyri to come to light and a whole new era of New Testament textual criticism suddenly unfolded. This discovery is a landmark, not because New Testament papyri had not been found before, but because the Chester Beatty papyri affected not merely a quantitative change in the materials available, but a qualitative change in the discipline. The Oxyrhynchus papyri, of course, have been discovered and published already beginning in 1898. providing many fragments of New Testament text, and the Bodmer papyri from 1956 and following were in some significant ways to overshadow the Chester Beatty, yet the Chester Beatty papyri were so extensive and so early in date that they rightly demanded a restructuring of New Testament text-critical theory and practice. Such a restructuring, of course, did not actually take place, for example, when P45 in the Gospels was aligned with the Caesarean text. Critics still called that text Caesarean rather than the P45 text or the Chester Beatty text. either of which would have been an appropriate and natural designation. Nevertheless, the ultimate effects of these papyri upon critical edition, both text and apparatus, and as stimuli to studies across the entire discipline, were enormous and lasting, and the landmark quality of the discovery is indisputable. When the Bodmer papyri, most notably P66 and P75, are recognized also as ingredients of the period since 1930, it is quite appropriate to refer to the 50-year period from 1930 to 1980 as, quote, the period of the papyri, end quote. For, given the high valuation placed upon these and the other papyri, we seem to have reached a new stage, perhaps plateau is the word, which provides a new and refreshing vantage point for viewing the New Testament text, but a plateau from which, for the moment at least, we have not been led to an obvious higher plane." That's the end of the total quotation. My point here is that James White gets it wrong. The overthrow of the traditional text in the 19th century happened before what Eldon J. Upp calls the period of the papyri from 1930 to 1980. So the challenges to the TR were not related to the papyri discovery. In fact, as I've noted before, Harry Sturtz has argued that many of the papyri finds actually support the Byzantine or the traditional text. So it's just kind of a strange comment for James White to make. I think we can profit from studying the full range of the history of the study of the New Testament. I think we can profit from studying Karl Lachman, although I disagree with him, even though he wrote before the discovery of the papyri. I believe we can profit from reading Westcott and Hort, although I disagree with them, and they did their work before the discovery of the papyri. Likewise, I think we can profit from reading the writings of John Owen on text criticism, even though he wrote before the age of the papyri. So I really don't understand where James White is coming from, and he seems to be, quite honestly, factually confused here. I mean, sure, theology, things like that, that's great, fine, wonderful, but as far as the actual state of the question, if you're writing before the discovery of the papyri, you're writing on the basis of minimal information. So, the only things that we should read on text criticism must be after 1930? After 1980? That just doesn't seem right. And it's very difficult to really be consistent at that point. So, I understand that Reform Baptists take that perspective. Okay, I don't think it's consistent. The reason I'm doing this is, one of the things that came up is something I feel very strongly about. I take the Reformed Baptist belief in the inerrancy of Scripture into battle around the world. And there's a big difference when you do that than the theory in the nice, quiet study. Alright, now he's going to talk about apologetics here. He says he's out there taking the inerrant Bible into battle. There are a couple of interesting things I could respond to that. I won't have time here. One would be whether or not the relatively modern Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy view of inerrancy that rests its case in the original autographs is actually consistent with the particular Baptist, Puritan, Westminster Confession, Second London Baptist Confession view of Scripture. Certainly they held that Scripture was inerrant, without error, even though that's a term that isn't invented until decades later. The term they prefer to use is the infallibility of Scripture, and if you read Article 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Article 1 of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, the emphasis is not upon the autographs, but upon the opographs, upon the copies that the Scriptures have been preserved, faithfully preserved in the copies that were in use in the church, the traditional text. Again, that's another issue and might be worth another podcast at some point. But at this point, he's raising this issue, and I'll come back to it eventually, about apologetics. Let's pause here for a moment. I don't know what exactly he's saying. I'm a pastor. I pastor a church. Is he saying that as a pastor that I shouldn't spend my time in the study, studying the texts of the scriptures, that I should leave that to other people like him who are experts, who can go out there and have the conversations with Bart Ehrman or Marcus Borg or whoever? You know, I haven't had any dialogues with Bart Ehrman face-to-face, but I've encountered Bart Ehrman through his writings, and I've actually written and given some verbal critiques of Bart Ehrman's work. I happen to teach in a college, and I've had Muslim students. I've had atheist students. I've had students who've read Bart Ehrman and have challenged my views and I haven't felt ill-equipped at all to respond to their challenges and to support the traditional text. I think you can go out there and do apologetics and do ministry capably with the help of the Holy Spirit. and uphold the traditional text. So James, I as a pastor I'm not out there in the battlefield of ideas as I minister, as I preach Sunday by Sunday, as I teach. I don't understand. You're not the only one who's out there on the front lines doing ministry, and I feel a bit insulted. It's dismissive. There are lots of us that are doing ministry, and I think as pastors we all ought to be in the study. This isn't esoteric study for me. This is the life or death of my ministry. This is the surety and certainty with which I can stand behind the pulpit or behind the teaching lectern and give a presentation on the scriptures, on theology, and on doctrine. So I really don't understand the nature of this response. And one of the things I feel very strongly about is the Kami Ohanian. anyone who demands the Koma Yohaneum as found in the Textus Receptus, not in the Byzantine Text. It's not a majority reading. Yes, the Koma Yohaneum is a distinct reading of the TR, the Textus Receptus, and this kind of goes back to the point which also was sort of not responded to by James White And that is that I made the point, actually Todd Friel confused this more than James, James didn't confuse it, Todd Friel did, that the Textus Receptus, yes, it is an eclectic text. It sometimes includes the reading of the majority text. it sometimes chooses minority readings, and the Koma Yohaneum would be an example. I don't think that I ever confused the TR as being equivalent with the majority of the Byzantine text. Maybe he's making this point for other people out there who are listening, but since he's responding to my podcast, the implication is that I confused these things, and I'll just invite you to go back and listen to it again. I did not confuse those things. In fact, quite the opposite. and made the argument that the TR is, in fact, an eclectic text. You have to, for some, I think, primarily theological reason, invest, and there isn't any just one text, but, you know, the 1633 Elsevier, or the Scrivener's text, or whatever, You get to pick and choose which one you want, because there's variations. This is, by the way, again, there's so many things here that he throws out. Another typical challenge that you'll hear to the TR is, well, which TR? Which TR? Do you mean the 1516 Erasmus? Do you mean the 1555 Stephanus? Do you mean the 1624 Elsevier? the 1894 Scrivener, but the thing about it is, yes, there are some variations among those printed editions of the received text, but in all of them, the pericope adulteri is included as part of the text of Scripture. In all of them, the longer ending of Mark is included. Yes, there are some variations, but, and it would be great, I might come back to this later, I think it would be great if there were a critical edition of the TR that pointed out the variations between the various printed editions, but they also have great agreement I mean, this would be as silly as me saying, well, which edition of the critical text do you support? Do you support the NA-27, the NA-28, etc.? It's still the modern critical text. And again, maybe that's not a great analogy because you should use the most recent version of that, the NA-28. But at any rate, that's just a brief response to a common argument that is thrown up against the TR. Again, I never said the Koma Yohannam was a Byzantine reading. I'm not being inconsistent. I'm acknowledging that the TR is an eclectic text. The easier passages to support in the TR are the ones that agree with the majority of Byzantine texts. It's much easier to argue for the Perikope Adulteri, and it's much easier to argue, in my view, it's just a slam dunk to argue for the longer ending of Mark. I agree that the Koma Yohaneim is a difficult reading in the TR. I know it's not part of the majority text. I don't think I confuse that. Go back and listen to my presentation. I don't think I ever confuse that point. It's not a Greek reading. Well, it is found in Greek manuscripts, and it is found very early in the Latin versions, which probably indicates that it had a Greek textual origin. So we can't dismiss it as not having any Greek roots at all. Hmm. So, if you accept the traditional text, including the Koma Yohaneim, he's essentially saying you cannot do apologetics, you cannot meaningfully defend the text of the New Testament?" Well, I'll hold my comments until later. I'm just amazed at that statement. You know, sometimes people who are KJV-only, that's not a position I support, but they're criticized for being shrill in their rhetoric and saying that unless you follow their view, you're not a Christian or you can't do ministry, etc. This seems to be a sort of a modern text criticism only-ism. Where unless we adopt your view, we can't do apologetics. Are you really saying that? I'll come back to this eventually. Atheist, Muslim, whatever. You couldn't do it. To defend that text as original is to abandon all meaningful apologetics in the New Testament. Just admit it. Just give it up. I feel very strongly about that. Because if you can defend a reading that arises in the Latin tradition, enters into the later Latin versions, is not a part of the Greek manuscript tradition, is not a part of the manuscripts from which any of the early versions were translated, if a vitally theological assertion like that can disappear wholesale from the New Testament, then we have absolutely no reason to believe the New Testament is accurate. Well, James, we're not saying... that's the point. The point is we're saying it did not disappear wholesale from the Christian tradition. It was somehow tenaciously preserved. It was there early on. I've already said we have evidence it was there in the fourth century in Latin manuscripts. It was tenacious. It persisted in the Latin tradition. There are, again, granted, later Greek manuscripts that contain it. Also, it's one piece of the argument for the Trinity. There are many other scriptural arguments for the Trinity as well. It's one piece of that, but the very point is that somehow it didn't completely drop out. It wasn't completely abandoned, but it was tenacious. I would say, if we're going to talk about consistency, do you apply that standard to the so-called shorter ending of Mark? which appears in the unseals of the 4th and 5th century like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, but then disappears from the manuscript tradition as the so-called longer ending of Mark from the 4th century forward. is dominant in the majority tradition. So does that mean that because that tradition fell out and it wasn't preserved, that if you defend that ending, your position cannot be valid in doing apologetics? Again, I don't see this as being very consistent or charitable. Just give it up. Just throw in the towel. And I just don't think most of the people who have a traditional dedication to this recognize that they are, in essence, destroying any meaningful apologetic for the defense of the New Testament by holding this position. I don't think they realize that. I just don't think they've ever been in a position to have to actually defend it in that kind of a context, is one thing. So now we've gone from we can't do apologetics to if we hold to the traditional text, we're actually destroying apologetics. And again, I'm bothered by the elitism that I hear in this. Are you only doing apologetic ministry when you have discussions with Bart Ehrman or with Muslim apologists? Like I said, I'm a pastor. I'm on the front lines doing ministry every single day, whether it's in interactions with people, evangelistic conversations with people, whether it's teaching, and I don't feel at all ill-prepared to do that because I hold to the traditional text of Scripture. I must say, I did a review back in 2012, I think it was, of the book that had the transcript of the dialogue between Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman. It was called The Herd Lectures that were at New Orleans, in New Orleans. And I made the comment, I think in my book review, and I made the same comment when I did a brief review of some snippets from James White's so-called debate with Bart Ehrman, that when Dan Wallace and James White talk with Bart Ehrman on textual criticism, there's really not much disagreement among them. I mean, they both support the modern critical eclectic text, so they would all say that the pre-adulterized, non-original part of the Word of God, they would all say that the longer ending of Mark is secondary. They would all say that the Koma Yohaneum is spurious. So there's really not a lot to debate about with Bart Ehrman when you essentially agree with him on text criticism. Bart Ehrman did his PhD under Bruce Manning Metzger at Princeton and he pretty much reflects the views of Metzger on text criticism. James White, as I pointed out, pretty much reflects the views of Metzger, not because he studied with him, but because he read his works, including the text of the New Testament. So, again, I actually think that you might be able to do more meaningful apologetics with someone like Bart Ehrman. There would at least be some difference in the substance of your conversation if you would actually defend the traditional text against his viewpoints. I feel strongly about this. I know the background of the TR, and I know the background of the Kama Yohannam, and Pastor Riddle even reads from Metzger's commentary on this, but he didn't actually read everything from Metzger's commentary. No, Metzger's commentary is very long. Even the article on the Kama Yohannam is about three pages long. And yeah, I selectively read one full paragraph to make my point. And he's going to go on and say some other things. Of course, I do not believe that Metzger's commentary supports my position. Quite the opposite. My point was that Metzger believes that the Koma Yohaneum, like James White, was a gloss, that it came in through a marginal comment. Now, he doesn't have any concrete evidence for that. It's a speculation on his part, and Metzger is very careful about how he words things. He uses the words may, might, probably, a lot in the textual commentary. I think Metzger would tell you, this is what I think, but I can't conclusively, without any shadow of a doubt, prove this to you. But that's certainly what he believes. My point in the Metzger quotation was to show that Metzger acknowledges that though the Koma Yonahim does not appear until late in the Greek manuscript tradition, it is there very early on from the fourth century in the Latin translations. So anyways, I don't really understand James White's trajectory here because it seems to imply that I've misused or deceptively quoted Metzger. Go read it for yourself. I read a long chapter out of Metzger and I never pretended that Metzger supporting my position. First John 5, as we'll see. But I want to address what was said here, because I think it's very, very important for us to give a meaningful defense for the accuracy of the transmission of the text in the New Testament. And if you hold the comma, I just don't think you can. So let's listen to what's found here, and I hope this will come through. I'm playing it just a little bit quicker. I listen to it at two times speed, but let's listen to this section here and I'll make some comments. All right, I'm going to stop there again. I noted in the beginning that there were, I summarized them as four points that James White makes First of all, he took exception to the very fact, to the occasion, that he felt like it was wrong for me to interact with the information in the video clip that I should have interacted with his writings. I've already pointed out that what he said in the video clip is consistent with his writings. And in the second part, he takes exception to the brief comments that I made about the Coma Ionaeum. Let me again say that this was a very brief part of the comments that I made. The main focus was upon the Rush to Print legend and the ending of Revelation, but after about an hour I did respond to some of the Koma Yohaneum comments and I thought it was strange that this is where he chose to focus his attention. I already said, I admit that this is one of the most difficult TR readings to defend. I noted when he put up his chart and he listed the five Greek manuscripts and he made the argument that all of these are spurious witnesses to the Koma Ioaneion, certainly I would, you know, beg to differ about his interpretation of these documents. I know a couple of years ago, I think it was in 2010, Dan Wallace, who's another person who's not a friend to the traditional text, noted on his blog that he had discovered a ninth document which had the Koma Yoneum, I think at least as a marginal note, so there are at least nine witnesses to the Coma Johannaeum. Dan Wallace in that little article notes that he dates number 629 to the 14th century and James White says that it's a diglot that was translated from the Latin and again I'd like to see some evidence for that. Where is that said? It might be true Of course, if you see a Latin text and a Greek text, it's possible the Greek was just translated from the Latin. It could also be possible that the Latin was translated from the Greek, and so the Greek manuscript could be a legitimate manuscript, or it could be that the Greek was from one manuscript and the Latin from another. I don't know the textual history of 629. I also thought it was interesting that in that chart that he showed in the presentation, he gave one specific date for Codex 61 and he said it was it was created in 1520. I don't know if you noticed that. The other ones had broad century dating but he gave a very specific date for Codex 61 saying that it was written in 1520. One of the questions that I would have is how do you know that? And this leads to another Erasmian legend that again has its roots in Metzger and that James White perpetuates. In Metzger we see this, let's see, I think it's on page 101 of Metzger's The Text of the New Testament, second edition, in which he puts forward the idea that after Erasmus printed his first edition, which did not include the Coma Ioneum, that he was criticized for that, and so he, this is from page 101, Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In an unguarded moment, Erasmus promised that he would insert the Koma Yohaneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length, such a copy was found or was made to order. As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy, or Roy, who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. And again, I'd point out that Metzger is a master at using may, might, and probably. Notice he says it was probably, it had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy or Roy. If you look down in the footnote, he mentions two secondary sources. Again, nothing in Erasmus is cited. The two secondary sources, one is by J. Rendell Harris, and the other is by C.J. Turner. And I would call this, using Screech's language, the fantasy or the legend that Erasmus issued a rash wager that if a Greek manuscript could be presented containing the Koma Ioaneum, that he would put it into his Greek New Testament after it did not appear in the first edition. This is another account that is perpetuated popularly. It's there in D.A. Carson. And by the way, it's also there in James White. This is on pages 60 and 61 of the King James only controversy. And again, he may have changed this in the updated edition, but I'm working with the copy that I have. This is page 6061. James White writes, in responding to Lee, Erasmus challenged him to produce a Greek manuscript that has what is missing in my edition. Likewise, Erasmus rebutted Zuniga by pointing out that while he, Zuniga, was constantly referring Erasmus to one particular Greek manuscript, In this case, he had not brought his text forward, correctly assuming that even Zuniga's manuscript agreed with Erasmus' reading. Let me skip down to the next paragraph. Since Erasmus had promised in his response to Lee to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase In the third edition, we're presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase Codex Montfortianus, now at Trinity College, Dublin. The manuscript is highly suspect in that it most probably was created in the house of the Grey Friars, whose provincial, Henry Standish, was an old enemy of Erasmus. Now, I will give James White credit because He does, in the footnotes for this section, include on page 85, footnote 29, a recognition that Metzger, in his third edition of the text of the New Testament, cites an article by H. J. de Jong that we're going to talk about in just a moment. although it seems that James White has only read the corrected third edition of Metzger and has not actually read the article by H.J. de Jong. So let's look more closely at the article by H.J. de Jong. And by the way, you spell his last name D-E-M-N-J-O-N-G-E. I'm pronouncing it D-E-J-O-N-G-E. I'm not 100% sure of the correct pronunciation, but that's what I'm doing. The article is titled Erasmus and the Coma Yohaneum. It appeared in the Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis in 1980 on pages 381 to 389. and De Jong wrote this article and he investigated in this article the story that Erasmus had made a rash vow or rash promise that if anyone could produce a Greek manuscript of the Koma Yohaneum then he would put it in one of his published editions of the Greek New Testament, since he didn't include it in the first and second edition. Then, a manuscript was conveniently created, and it was because of this, then, that Erasmus was obligated to put the Coma Ioneum in the text of his printed third edition of his printed Greek New Testament. As I've already noted, this account is perpetuated in Metzger, then it is picked up on by other people, and I've already read how James White, also in the King James Version-only controversy, perpetuates the same story. It's a lot like the way M. A. Screech examined the account of Erasmus rushing the first edition of the Greek New Testament to print, therefore it was riddled with errors. M.A. Screech examined that and said there's no historical evidence that that's actually what happened. And H.J. de Jong examined the account of the rash promise of Erasmus that someone produce a copy of the Koma Yonaum in Greek And he examines this and says he can find no historical evidence that this actually ever took place. It's very interesting in the opening of this article in page 381, de Jong first of all gives a survey of the story about how Erasmus made this rash vow. And then he says, this is again page 381, quote, this version of events has been handed down and disseminated for more than a century and a half by the most eminent critics and students of the text of the New Testament. And then he names a few people who have perpetuated the story, including Hort, Scrivener, Westcott, Nessel, Kenyon, etc. Then he says the same tradition has also been disseminated in a number of works intended for a wider public interested in the textual transmission of the Bible or other ancient literature. He also says the story of the way Erasmus is said to have honored his promise is also handed down in the literature which refers specifically to the humanist himself. And among these he mentions Roland Bainton's 1969 biography of Erasmus that I've mentioned before in this series. The last couple lines of this paragraph on page 382 are very interesting. He says, how often must those who lecture in the New Testament or textual criticism at universities the world over have passed on the story of the good faith with which a deceived Erasmus kept his word to the students in the lecture halls. And then most interesting, the last line he says, the writer of these lines cannot plead innocence in this respect. In other words, H.J. de Jong says, I too used to tell this story. I've passed it on to my students in lectures. But then he tried to trace it down. He tried to trace the roots of it. And when he did that, he couldn't find any real roots for the story. And it ends up being a legend. he notes three difficulties with the story. He says, in the first place, this is page 382, it is remarkable that there is no trace of this tradition in the works of the great experts in the history of the text of the New Testament in the 17th and 18th centuries. So you cannot find a word about this legend in works on text criticism of the 17th and 18th centuries, including ones that specifically deal with the Koma Yohaneum and controversies over its inclusion in Erasmus and its inclusion in the Texas Receptus. He says, the earliest reference to Erasmus' promise, of which he is aware, is found in a work by T.H. Horn in the year 1818 And he says it's unclear in that source where Horne derived this information. So the best he can trace it is to the year 1818. He says a second difficulty is that the retelling of the story of Erasmus' supposed promise has striking variations. He says, some authors relate that Erasmus made this promise to the Spanish opponent, Stunica. Others say that the promise was given to the English assailant, Edward Lee. Yet others write, without making a clear distinction, that Erasmus gave his promise in reaction to the criticisms of both Lee and Stunica, while others again leave it undetermined to whom the promise was directed. And then he goes on to say that if you examine the correspondence of Stunica and the correspondence of Lee, you find no trace of this reference of Erasmus making a promise to either of these men. And then he says, most striking of all, this is his third difficulty, he says, let me just read it directly, this is page 384, a third problem is that the famous promise of Erasmus is not to be found anywhere in his works. It is thus not surprising that with one exception none of the authors known to me who relate the story refer to a specific passage in Erasmus or in other 16th century literature where such a pledge is found. The only exception is Bainton and he says that the reference Bainton makes is to a passage in Erasmus that actually doesn't have anything to do with Erasmus making any such promise, but Bainton did try to look around in the works of Erasmus. So, as M. A. Screech showed with the rush to publish legend, De Jong completely destroyed the myth of Erasmus making a rash vow. This is how De Jong finishes the article, he sums it up on page 389 He says, number one, the current view that Erasmus promised to insert the Koma Ioaneum, if it could be shown to him in a single Greek manuscript, has no foundation in Erasmus' works. Consequently, it is highly improbable that he included the disputed passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise. Then secondly, he says, it cannot be shown from Erasmus' works that he suspected the Codex Britannicus, which is Codex 61, of being written with a view to force him to include the Coma Iohaneum. De Jong's work is very powerful and it shows, once again, how I think, beginning in the 19th century, there was a concerted effort to disparage the work of Erasmus because this was seen as helping to undermine the authority of the traditional text. And so we see James White perpetuating this in his writings, although once again, he does note that Metzger in the third edition of his work on text criticism, in light of the Dijon article, did include a footnote and alter what he said because he'd been basically caught and he knew that what Dijon was writing was absolutely accurate. And it looks like again that James White had not actually read the Dijon article but had seen that Metzger had adjusted the story in the third edition. But anyway, my point is this should be taken into consideration when we evaluate how like Codex 61 has been weighed and valued because I think there's been a concerted effort not only to undermine it, but to undermine any sense of there being Greek witnesses that support the Coma Iohaneum. The third point that I want to address that James White raises to a high visibility is the point where he takes exception to the comments that I made about conjectural emendations which appear in the modern critical text, particularly at Acts 16.12 and at 2 Peter 3.10. As part of this discussion, he also raises a new issue, which is the text of Revelation 16.5, which he says is a textual emendation from a Beza. So he says if you have problems with textual inundations, basically Acts 16.5 and 2 Peter 3.10 are minor textual conjectures, but Beza had a whopper of one in Revelation 16.5. Let me respond to this, and I also noticed today that James White in his most recent dividing line has given a very large section of that episode to reviewing those two passages, Acts 16.12 and 2 Peter 3.10. I've not yet had a chance to view that and maybe it'll warrant a response at some point depending on what is said. I mentioned in the original Word Magazine 25 that I had become aware of these conjectural emendations in the modern critical text through a conversation with Dr. Maurice Robinson. And by the way, I know full well that Dr. Maurice Robinson supports the Byzantine texts and not the TR. I know that full well. He and I have talked about that and we would charitably just disagree on that point. But I want to just again respond to this. I want to acknowledge that in the original podcast, the Word Magazine 25, I wrongly said that the conjectural inundations were in the Messalon 28th edition. In fact, James White is quite right. They are in the 27th edition. and they are not included, the notation, conjectural inundation is not included in the apparatus of the 28th edition. So I stand corrected. That was not Maurice Robinson's fault. That was my misstatement and I mentioned that I just got a printed copy of the 28th edition just about two weeks ago and I am beginning to read and study it and compare it with the 27th and I inaccurately said that that was in the 28th, when in fact it was in the 27th. However, that minor mistake doesn't nullify the main point that I was making, which is, namely, that the editors of the Nessel-Holland Critical Edition are open to conjectural inundations. And I was, I was, it was, my main point was to say that it is inconsistent to criticize the TR as an eclectic text which chooses readings which have weaker Greek manuscript support like the Koma Yohaneum or even that it makes in some versions of the TR there are conjectural inundations like the one Beza made apparently at Revelation 16.5. I'm not an expert on that one. I might point out that if you look at the Stephanus' Texas Receptus or the Elsevier Brothers' Texas Receptus, they do not make the same conjectural inundation that Beza apparently did. And again, I haven't studied Beza's. I'd like to see the primary sources on Beza as well. That seems to be a basic theme for a lot of my presentations. Show me the primary references and don't depend on secondary references. But at any rate, if BASA made a conjectural inundation, then that was picked up in the King James Version. You know, that's something that could be evaluated. Again, I'd love it if there were a critical comparison of the various printed editions of the TR. My purpose is not to defend the King James Version. I'm not a KJV onlyist, although I have a much admiration and respect for the King James Version, and I respect those who have a preference for it in public preaching and teaching. I regularly preach from the King James Version myself. My point in mentioning though the conjectural emendations of modern critical text again was to say it is inconsistent to criticize the TR as an eclectic text and various editors of the TR like Beza who make conjectural emendations if you accept the modern critical text whose editors also support conjectural emendations. And along these lines, another little book that I've been reading lately is one that is by David Trobisch, and it is titled, A User's Guide to the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek New Testament. This is published by the Society of Biblical Literature. It's in their Text Critical Studies series number 9. This was published in 2013 to be a companion piece for the Nessalon 28th edition. The copyright on it is Society Biblical Literature and also the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft in Stuttgart. So it's one that's apparently been approved by the people who published the Nessalon 28th edition. On, rather, page 43 of Trubisch's work, which he's giving you a basic overview for the reader to how to understand the Nessalon 28, he does point out, and I'd already read this and still I got confused on it. There's a lot of information to remember in this. But on page 43, he says, the editors of the NA-28 decided to refrain from noting conjectures in the apparatus. But then he goes on to say, however, this does not imply that the editors are principally against conjectures. Producing an eclectic text always opens the possibility that in some cases, no manuscript containing the original reading has survived. No matter how many witnesses exist, the initial text may have been lost. noting theoretical reconstructions of the oldest text form is good practice for editors of eclectic editions." So my point again, let me be clear about this, is my point is it's inconsistent to criticize the TR as an eclectic text for having readings that have slighter Greek manuscript support like the Koma Yohaneum. or even occasional, perhaps even conjectures, like that of Bezos in Revelation 16.5, it's inconsistent to criticize the TR for that when that is basically the operating policy of the editors of the Nessalon 28th edition, and also the Nessalon 27th edition. And somehow it seems that James White hasn't grasped really the essence of that critique. This is getting very long, very, very long, a lot longer than I wanted it to be, but there's just so much information. Let me just finally address the fourth point relating to consistency and apologetics, although I've addressed apologetics to some degree along the way. James White bristles at the charge of inconsistency on his part, again, in criticizing the TR as an eclectic text for weak manuscript support for some readings, while supporting the modern critical text, also an eclectic text, which also has weak manuscript support for some readings. He then turns the table and accuses those who prefer the TR of inconsistency and suggests that if one holds this view, he cannot pursue meaningful apologetics or ministry. And let me just sum up by giving a couple of responses to that. First, is it really inconsistent to reject TR readings that have weak Greek New Testament manuscript support, like the Coma Ioannaeum, but then at the same time to embrace modern critical text readings that also have weak support. And I'm going to think in particular about the ending of Mark. Mark 16, 9 through 20, has strong manuscript support. There is very weak support in my view for excluding Mark 16, 9 through 20. There are only three majuscule, actually two majuscule manuscripts and one minuscule manuscript that leave out the longer ending of Mark. Of course they are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and 304, but that's only three manuscripts that leave out the longer ending of Mark. So it's inconsistent to say, well that's okay in that case, but to criticize the TR for having readings that have weaker manuscript support. Second, James White says you cannot hold to the TR and possibly engage in meaningful apologetics ministry. He says you will actually destroy apologetic ministry. Again, I'm turning that over my head and I want to ask James White, well does this mean that somebody like Joel Beeky, the president of Puritan Reformed Seminary, who holds to the TR, the traditional text, or the ministers in the Free Presbyterian denomination that also hold to the traditional text and preach from the King James Version, but who are not KJV only-ist. Does this mean that they cannot have meaningful apologetics with agnostics, with atheists, with Muslims, with liberals who might challenge the text of scripture? What about a man like my friend Pouyan Mirshahi, who is a pastor in the UK, who is of Iranian descent, who in addition to his pastoral ministry also has a para-church ministry to Farsi-speaking Iranians, expatriates who are outside of Iran, but also to people within Iran, does radio broadcast, internet ministry, and he completely upholds the traditional text of Scripture. Does this mean he cannot do meaningful apologetics with Muslims? And I must say I feel a bit like Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 23, when he's defending his ministry, and he says, I speak as a fool, and he lists all the ways in which he's ministered and served. I mean, I could think of my own ministry. I support the traditional text, but by the grace of God, I've baptized a Farsi-speaking Iranian former Muslim who became a Christian. I have seen a Turkish man who is nominally Muslim come to faith in Christ and because of that run into severe conflict with his family and have to end up moving eventually to England and so I've been out there in ministry and in preaching and teaching and upholding the traditional text of scripture And I don't think it's been any kind of hindrance or barrier at all. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite, that I think adopting the modern critical text is the thing that can be a hindrance to a vital apologetic ministry. Third, I'd like to ask, is it consistent to reject the conclusion of historical critical scholars regarding cardinal issues of doctrine, but to emphasize the work of those same scholars with regard to the text of Scripture. And I asked this in the last podcast, it's another element that James White overlooked. Isn't it inconsistent to say that the liberal Enlightenment-era scholars of the 19th century, early 20th century, who rejected things like the virginal conception of Jesus, the deity of Jesus, the scandal of particularity, isn't it inconsistent to reject liberal theology and its efforts to demythologize and to correct what they saw as errant Christian doctrine by giving us liberal theology? Isn't it inconsistent to reject that, but to say, you know, they were wrong on those other things, but when it comes to the text of Scripture, they got it right. That seems to be an inconsistency. Fourth, I would ask, is it consistent to say that some passages were not part of the original inspired text of Scripture, but then to say it's okay to retain them within the Bible in brackets or in footnotes. I've wondered this about Dan Wallace, James White, and others. If you really believe that the Perikope Adulteri is not part of Scripture, and if you really believe the longer ending of Mark is not part of Scripture, then why don't you rip those out of your Bible? Why don't you refuse to use translations that include those spurious texts in your Bibles? And don't just double bracket them. Don't just put them in the footnotes. Why don't you remove them entirely? Is it inconsistent for you to say these are not part of the original Word of God, but we're going to include them in Scripture, in our printed copies of Scripture anyway. Fifth, is it consistent to adopt the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith but not adopt the view of the divine preservation of Scripture that is implied in that confession? And specifically, given this conversation about the Koma Yohaneum, Well, if you look at chapter 2 of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, which is of God and of the Holy Trinity, when it comes to the proof text, guess what one of the verses is that is cited as a proof text for the doctrine of God and the doctrine of the Trinity? 1 John 5, 7. James White, my fellow Reformed Baptists who accept the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Do you take a conscientious exception when you affirm the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith? And do you say, I affirm it except for the places where in the proof text it makes use of the traditional text of Scripture? How does your conscience rest easy with the fact that the framers of the Second London Confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith, affirmed the traditional text of Scripture, and that is apparent in the passages that they choose to cite for the proof texts. James White, kind of testily, has said that he doesn't believe that there's any such thing as a consistent TR supporter. And I have to say that I don't think I've ever met a consistent evangelical modern critical text onlyist. I think to adopt uncritical support for the modern critical text leads one into serious inconsistencies. And I would really encourage Anyone who has made a commitment to the modern critical text to begin seriously and prayerfully to evaluate and to reconsider that commitment. Well, this has been a very long, a very long Word magazine, and I hope that you've been able to soldier through, listen to this. I'm sure that I spammered in a few places, more than one place, and maybe would have said things better But I hope that what I have said will prove to be useful and profitable, at least for some. Take care. Your deeds, Lord, make me glad, I'll joy in what you've done. I'll break your doings, Lord, I'll give your thoughts each one. Fools won't be shown, the foolish can't accept this truth to him unknown. Those centers grow like leaves, field-doers blossom late, Their tombs to be destroyed do Lord and soldiers say. Lord, Your foes fall. See how Your foes, many evil men, are scattered o'er. You raise my house, my home, put pressure on my head. You make me see the skies and hear what Father said. my thriving home, the righteous prose my seers all on them anon. O sanctified the Lord shall in God's courts be seen, When old hills still bear fruit, And forests fresh and green, And loud proclaim, How the pride is covered by rock, No wrong in them.