An entertaining review, it contains an allegation of dishonesty (discussed further below)
Was James White dishonest?
I don’t believe White can be accused of outright dishonesty. I guess it was a misdirection which will be passed off as a “debate tactic” no doubt. However, it is intellectually dishonest as it dismisses Price’s thesis in a sneaky fashion WITHOUT interacting with his argumentation. White, if he wants to indulge in serious scholarship should try and interact with the INTERNAL arguments Price has put forward to prop his claim. Just a suggestion…
Obvious! But WLC has responded..
Did Price base his article upon internal factors? Yes, he eve mentions he does not have manuscript evidence to support his thesis. . It is of interest to apologetics to note William Lane Craig has interacted on the issue – Dr Craig did not resort to such misdirection – as far as I am aware.
White: A history of debate blunder
If the reviewer was so annoyed at White’s little misdirection he can certainly empathise with Muslims who were aggrieved with James White’s two-fold shoddy scholarship. In a debate with Shabir Ally, White cites a non-existent “narration”. Still to this day I have not seen White give an explanation as to where this “narration” came from though some Muslims have found it came from a dubious Christian missionary tome. Yep, those missionaries do make stuff up – just have a look at pg 193 from Dr Robert Morey’s Islamic Invasion
The second is extremely worrying, in a debate with Sheikh Awal, White presented a claim of “Allah repenting in the Quran”. This was nonsense and he was soon denounced for such a nonsensical claim and even accused of LYING. It turned out; in his defence he cited a shoddy missionary website run by his friend as support!
Sadly, White to this day maintains he is correct and ALL the translators of the Quran are incorrect (his pal’s translation has also been shown to be grammatically incorrect in itself). By the way, his friend is notorious for amking up translations – he was caught making one such up whilst trying to convince his fellow “Bible believing” Christians that Islam “allows sec with animals!
Folks this is not scholarship; this is school boy stuff. This is a reason why debates should never be your primary station of learning. I feel sorry for the “Bible believing” Christians who swallow such fundamentalist fudging.
See here for more information with regards to the blunders:
Did James White “lie” in the Greg Stafford debate?
The reviewer makes such a claim. I have contacted him to explain such a statement. Of course we cannot accuse White of lying based on the reviewer’s say so. Perhaps those of his followers could help stimulate him into clarification…
Debates and buying/selling debates
A whole host of debate tactics (including dishonesty) and telescoping (due to time restraints) can result in serious truth seekers being misled.
James White is a career debater/apologist, thus he seems to be debating every fortnight and putting such up for sale on his site. Muslims should not be buying such material unless they are involved in serious apologetics – that means having GROUNDING in Islam first.
In my view Muslim “debaters” should NOT imitate White. How many times can one debate the same topic? Ultimately you end up making a mockery out of faith – nowadays debates are entertainment and the lay are drawn by the clash of individuals rather than the debate topic.
Debate topics, White and the rest
The reviewer accuses White of having a propensity to veer off topic in debates. Surely it is disrespectful to the audience to do so especially if they have spent some cash in purchasing the debate. I am on the cheap side so…
To be fair many debaters do the same.
Cash for ministries
The reviewer touches upon giving cash to James.
OK, I understand White seeking financial assistance but the “Christian” rabble rousers who cling onto him have no business asking for cash. Why it is “Christian” apologists on the internet think they have a God given right for finances from the “Christian” lay. I have never understood that – especially so with the “Christian” outreaches to Muslims which are full of lie, hoax and outrage. Come on, how those in White’s crew can seriously expect payment for such hate-filled nonsense as “Islam allows sex with animals”.
Really, is this “scholarship” worthy of “financial assistance”? Here is one presenting his “research” to his donors:
Christians, please think CRITICALLY
As Robert Price teaches do your OWN critical reading and don’t rely on what this person or that person is saying. Also, watch out for the misleading half-truths and blatant lies “Christian” apologists present to you. Apart from the in-your-face- type lies we expose on this blog the Christian apologist claim of having x number of manuscripts as though this somehow confirms the reliability of the document is beyond reprehensible. It, amongst other things, militates against the “God breathed” claim our Christian friends append to the Bible.
Prior to Tischendorf’s 1859 find the “Bible believing” Christians would have felt secure in reading the last chunk in Mark 16, enough said. Christians, think critically.
A quick thought on the appearance to the “more than 500”
You would imagine there to be numerous individual accounts recording such an appearance? Surely they would have told their respective stories INDIVIDUALLY and recordings made. After all, it would be deemed something to write home about, right?
Notes of interest from Robert Price’s theorizing
Walker’s (conspiracy) theory of standardization of the Pauline corpus to meet the then orthodox views is all very interesting but does away with any idea of a pre-third century manuscript existing – thus there will NEVER be MS evidence substantiating interpolation within any epistle. It puts White’s misdirection into shame – one can further understand the reviewer’s grievance!
All Price has to work with; “aporias, contradictions, stylistic irregularities, anachronisms, redactional seams”. The notion that Paul could have been a Gnostic is useful interest – perhaps further exploration is required here.
Robert Price begins talking our language with “uncertainty”. He has a point, why close off the options at two (authentic/inauthentic) – there is room for Price’s third!
Price’s big one
This, in my view is Price’s biggy, concerning 15:3: “”received / delivered” (paralambanein / paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition” and THUS this contradicts 1 Galatians 1:11-12 (Paul is claiming he was not taught it and nor did he receive it from any man).
E.L. Allen cites the obvious problem; that is of the story of the (more than) 500 not being registered in the gospel narratives? Internal suspicions are cranked up further.
The appearance to James the Just (1 Corinthians 15:7) is deemed problematic. “John (7:5) and Mark (3:21, 31-35), followed by Matthew (12:46-50), are clear that he was no friend of the ministry of Jesus”. The issue here is if James was an unbeliever then surely a conversion narrative would have been appended. To be fair Luke (Luke 8:19-21; Acts 1:14), does imply the whole family were believers.
I find it interesting Wisse seems to be warning against Price-type theorizing and citing the stability of scholarship as a reason to shun it. Interesting.
“I believe the prima facie likelihood is that many interpolations occurred in those early days”
Invitation to Islam
Do you know Muslims believe in Jesus as a Prophet? Muslims also believe the Bible has been changed. Learn Islam for yourself rather than relying on some fundamentalist “Christian” bigot to teach you a load of hate-filled twaddle about Islam. Good site to get your feet wet: