The Ross-White Debate produced at least one major and helpful revelation.  It showed the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of the chief modern critical text attack on the received text of scripture.  I want you to understand this.  White called the USB/NA textually superior because the Roman Catholic humanist Erasmus in 1516 had one extant manuscript for one variant in Ephesians 3:9.  He said that variant opposed nearly the entire manuscript tradition.

Erasmus, Humanism, and Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholic?

Before I dig into White’s assertion, let’s consider the information about Erasmus, a major part of his and other’s contention.  In 1516 Erasmus published a printed edition of the Greek New Testament, essentially the same text used for every translation of the New Testament for any language for hundreds of years.  True believers called this their Bible.  They broke from and stood against Roman Catholicism because of it, which advocated a Latin text, not an original language one.  It also opposed in general the Bible in the hands of the populace.

Erasmus was Roman Catholic in 1516.  Who wasn’t Roman Catholic in 1516?  Martin Luther still was.  John Calvin, albeit a boy, still was.  Ulrich Zwingli was.  William Tyndale was.  No one was Protestant.  Erasmus at least conflicted with the Roman Catholic Church when that was rare.  The English Reformation didn’t start until 1534.  This point should be a laughable one.  Almost every historian considers Erasmus a key forerunner of the Reformation.

Humanist?

Erasmus was a humanist, but that is not by a modern definition, where man is the measure of all things.  Secular humanists don’t believe in God.  Erasmus believed in God.  His humanism was a defense of the humanities.  This advocated for the study of the classical languages, literature, grammar, rhetoric, and history.  Regarding scripture, he promoted the study of the biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek.  Part of Erasmus’s humanism was Philosophia Christi, a simple, ethical Christianity without the rituals and superstitions of then Roman Catholicism.

The trajectory of the text of Erasmus moved through then to Stephanus and Beza, becoming the basis of the translations into the common languages:  English, German, Spanish, French, and Dutch.  Churches received this text and translated from it into their languages.  This did not become anything acceptable to Roman Catholicism.  They continued embracing the Latin.  The Roman Catholic Inquisitions ordered the destruction of Bibles in the vernacular.

What is White doing with his use of humanist and Roman Catholic?  I believe he is doing at least two things.  One, he is attempting to mute the reality that the titans of the critical text, they’re unbelieving.  Modern textual criticism proceeds without theological presuppositions and with solely naturalistic ones.  He wants to frame Erasmus into the same category.

Two, White wants to paint an unsavory association of the received text with humanism and Roman Catholicism.  He doesn’t want his audience to think of the humanities, but of secular humanism.  He doesn’t care that this isn’t the kind of humanist Erasmus was.  He’s hoping for the chaos or confusion of the deception.  White doesn’t care if Erasmus was Roman Catholic.  That doesn’t bother him about Athanasius or Augustine.  He knows too about the reality of Erasmus.  This is a mere rhetorical tactic.

Extant Manuscript Support for the Received Text or the Critical Text

Majority Text

On many other occasions and in the Ross-White Debate, James White said the received text (TR) was inferior because of lacking textual support.  Until Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad published their “Majority Text” in 1985, many, if not most TR advocates and others, called the TR, the majority text.  Men stopped referring to the TR as the majority text because people would think they referred to the Hodges-Farstad publication.  Why did men call the TR the majority text and the critical text, the minority text?

The TR is based on the majority of the manuscripts.  It is a Byzantine text.  A majority of the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament come from the area of the Byzantine Empire.  The TR agrees 99 percent with a majority of the manuscripts.

Hypocrisy and Deceit

White pointed to one word in Revelation 16:5 having no extant manuscript support.  This is his favorite argument against the TR.  He says that it is a conjectural emendation of Beza.  He points to one word in Ephesians 3:9 having the support of one extant manuscript.

Ross exposed the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of White’s chief argument against the TR and in favor of the USB/NA (critical text).  He showed how that in over a hundred places a line of reading in the USB/NA has no (zero) manuscript evidence.  White has one example.  Ross had over a hundred.

In addition, the entire critical text relies on a minority of the manuscripts, which is why men called that text, the minority text.  How could the TR be worse because one percent of it has support in the minority and the critical text does that for its entire text?  The USB/NA relies on very few manuscripts.  If that’s worse, as seen in White’s attack on the TR, how could he support the USB/NA over the TR?

In every place the USB/NA has no extant manuscript support for its lines of readings (again, over 100), the TR has manuscript support.  This should end White’s manuscript argument.  Ross pointed this out in the debate in a very clear fashion.  White would not recant of his position.

Ad Hominem

Instead, as he almost always does, White used ad hominem argument, attacking Ross personally, and then he tried to confuse the audience about what Ross said.  With no evidence, he told the audience this just wasn’t happening.  In essence, he said, “Don’t believe Ross, he doesn’t know what he’s doing and what he says really isn’t the truth,” followed by zero proof of that.

By writing this post, I could be associating with someone who is ignorant and a liar.  I should be careful.  This is what White wants his followers to believe about Ross.  Joining me in an association with Ross’s arguments is Jeff Riddle.  He and I do not know each other, but he too supported what Ross said.

I didn’t hear or see one person on White’s side, which would be in the thousands, debunk with any proof at all what Ross showed in the debate.  Since the debate, I read more of the White technique of slandering his opponent.  They focused on how many slides he had and how fast he talked.  They said the KJVO position was awful, not understanding that Ross showed in the debate how that according to White, the KJVO position fits a wide spectrum of possible positions.

A Choice

White and others have a choice.  They can concede to Ross and those who believe like him, including myself.  Or, they can go back to the drawing board to try to get better arguments.  I would say, get arguments period.  The Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 16:5 examples do not qualify as an argument from someone who supports readings with zero manuscript support.

The future bodes tough for White and his associates.  The situation is not going to change.  They have what they have.  Nothing new is arriving for them.  Personal attack, hypocrisy, and deceit are the best they have.