Jeffrey Riddle and Matthew Murphy Rose on extant Greek mss. - comments in Youtube

Steven Avery

Jeffrey Riddle explanation, sort of, and MMR comments

Riddle issues some kind of statement:

Pinned by Kept Pure in All Ages
Word Magazine
A Note of Clarification: It appears that one line in this presentation has been taken out of context and become a point of confusion. I apologize for not being clear in making this statement when conveying what I had written in my notes. I am not averse to making corrections or clarification and have done so many times before. You can look at the comments in the second lecture in this series where I corrected a mis-reference to Acts 8:37.

When charged with “spinning a narrative” I assumed this referred to one of the key theses of this lecture, namely, “There is not sufficient early extant Greek mss. evidence to justify the reconstruction method.” You can see that I made an offer to do a moderated online debate on this very topic.

If you listen to the entire lecture, you will see the context for my statement.

Prior to this, I had been discussing the Diocletian persecution and the loss and destruction of countless early NT mss. as a historical explanation for why so few early mss. were preserved.

After this statement I offered two examples to illustrate my point. The first was Ephesians 3:9 in which I noted there are only six extant witnesses to this verse dating earlier than AD 800. The second was to the CJ (1 John 5:7-8) in which I noted there were only two extant papyri for the entire book of 1 John (p9 and p74) and both are fragmentary (p9 has only five verses: 1 John 4:11-12, 14-17; neither provide any evidence for or against the CJ). Clearly my statements were meant to address the earliest evidence and not later minuscules.

In order to clarify my position, I want to offer my written notes from my lecture below which express what I did not say clearly in the oral presentation:"

"Modern restorationist scholars are often fond of boasting of how many total manuscripts we have of the NT (most recent best estimates range from 5100 to 5300 mss.), but those who cite these numbers in apologetics often fail to tell us how very few of these contain complete copies of the entire New Testament. Most of the earliest of these (so influential among reconstruction modern scholars) are not whole books, much less the whole NT, but mere fragments containing at best a few words or verses.

First things first: In my second comment I specifically asked Dr. Riddle if this could have been the reason (note italics):

"JTR, thanks for the reply. It should be obvious that none of those quotations back the specific assertions that I referred to. (Unless, of course, "many" and "some"—has suddenly become synonymous with "most," in the last week or so.) Is it possible that you forgot to qualify your statement, or some other glitch happened w/ your notes/references? The reason I ask is because the average NT Gk. MS is hundreds of pages, and very many of them contain whole books, and/or whole sections (i.e. e a p r ). Albeit, the papyri evidence is oftentimes just scraps and tatters." -MMR

And yet after dozens of comments, and a few days later we find: "In order to clarify my position, I want to offer my written notes from my lecture below which express what I did not say clearly in the oral presentation"

Unbelievable...perhaps Dr. Riddle will be issuing a statement for those of us who either haven't drank the Kool-aid, or were not born yesterday (?).

Steven Avery

”Yeah, I'm not 100% sure what it means–but it doesn't sit well. Although I tend to agree with you, because it certainly comes across like they're more interested in saving face than finding the truth.”

Scrubbing embarrassing comments is associated with James Wtite.
Not a good look for Jeffrey, originally he scrubbed mine.


Did you see James White attack Nick Sayers and others on Jehovah.

White used the same non-argumentation that is common on BVDB!