Here is my response to Dr. White’s criticism of my video on the unreliability of the Bible. Of note are incorrect claims made on his part, conflating my statement of lacunae with his misrepresenting that statement as a ‘textual variant’ for over 40 minutes. Also his facetious and incredulous disregard for the science of higher criticism which he labeled as ‘mind reading’, along with citing or basing his arguments on misdatings of both p52 and p66.
There were a lot more errors but on his end, there was not a single rebuttal to the claims I presented and I was extremely disappointed to see negative comments about my character throughout his video despite both at the beginning and at the end of his video he said that this behaviour should not be condoned.
The point needs to be made on John 20:28, there are texts pre-p66, p66 and texts post p66. You don’t know what the texts for pre-p66 said, there is a gap in what p66 said, he then thinks it’s okay to take the anachronistic reading post p66 and throw it into the gap for p66. That’s not a solution, it’s an anachronism, it’s guesswork, you need the pre-p66 text to fill the gap, not texts later.
He also conflated the sciences of textual criticism of the Bible with ‘Ilm al Rasm al Mushaf in bringing up the Topkapi codex and the Sana’a manuscripts. I chose not to respond to that fallacious tu quoque argument for several reasons. Namely my paper on the Qur’an covers those fraudulent claims clearly, and he’s not educated in the science of ‘Ilm al Rasm al Mushaf. The last time he challenged me on these topics was via an email list that contained scholars both Muslim and Christian. Dr. White did not respond to my arguments then and I duly received plaudits from our scholarly Muslim colleagues for the well referenced arguments I put forward.
If Dr. White is serious about having an academic discussion on these issues, I’m fully willing, but as it stands, he prefers not to do so. In the meantime I’ll continue studying both sciences and producing works on textual criticism under the guidance of known textual criticis, for whom I’m thankful of for their educating of me in this field
It is unfortunate that some (in particular only a single person) Muslims would agree with James’ video despite my video having pointed out James’ ignorance of basic textual and higher critical studies. Furthermore, the fact that some Muslims and Christians do not grasp the fact that there is an intermediate text between the autographic and/ or archetypal text before P66 is simply astounding, given that Dr. Ehrman has consistently taught that the papyri we have today are based on copies of copies of copies of copies.
Please note that I am posting this from the hospital receiving emergency treatment: