Dr. Jeff Riddle vs. Dr. James White | Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text DEBATE | Mark 16:9:20
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2020
- The first of the 2 part TR vs. CT debate between Dr. Jeffery Riddle and Dr. James White on the Longer Ending of Mark.
For more information about Explain Apologetics or to request a speaker, kindly visit www.explainapologetics.com or email us explainapologetics@gmail.com.
If you would like to support us financially, check out our Patreon page: / explainapologetics .
0:00:00 - Introduction
0:08:25 - James White - Opening Statement (20 minutes)
0:28:32 - Jeff Riddle - Opening Statement (20 minutes)
0:50:06 - James White - Rebuttal (10 minutes)
1:00:15 - Jeff Riddle - Rebuttal (10 minutes)
1:11:50 - James White - Cross-Examination (10 minutes)
1:22:30 - Jeff Riddle - Cross-Examination (10 minutes)
1:33:20 - James White - Closing Statement (10 minutes)
1:43:37 - Jeff Riddle - Closing Statement (10 minutes)
1:53:06 - End of Formal Debate
1:53:40 - Q&A
@Explain Apologetics for what its worth, if you put timestamps like this in the description (the 0:00:00 one is necessary) then the timebar will show the chapter markers for each point. Its nice to have on long videos like this.
Thank you for the suggestion and for help in doing this.
Jimmy says the autographs are preserved in all 10,000 variant copies? That's a non answer.
You're a skeptic, Jimmy. Only God knows what is in the autographs, remember? You said it.
Regarding the update on the thumbnail photo on this debate video. It's dishonest of this channel to make a knowledge claim that Mark's ending is NOT inspired and that the matter is "settled". James White couldn't be further away from demonstrating this.
@@joshuascott8521I noticed that too. What a disgraceful display by this channel.
This should be removed from the thumbnail...
"Resolved: Mark 16:9-20 is not original or inspired and should not be not be received as the Word of God"
Did I really hear that correctly? That James White, a man who is always so forward to remind us just how often he debates, brought up the fact that Dr Riddle did not address White's opening statement in his opening statement? Wouldn't it have been just as ridiculous for Dr. Riddle to begin his opening statement by saying 'Mr. White did not address any of the points I am about to make!"?
I think what he means is that James white made certain claims about the manuscripts and how often the le of mark appears. In Jeff’s opening statements he makes claims about the manuscripts that directly oppose James claims but does not address the contradiction.
Thank you Explain Apologetics, Dr. White and Dr. Riddle for doing this debate.
Thank you for being so kind and supportive.
cross examination starts 1:11:49
God bless you gentleman. Looking forward to listening to this debate!
After debate 2 unfortunately Dr Riddle imploded because the argument he used here was completely forgotten and he had to use a different method to defend Ephesians. Taken alone, I think Dr Riddle won debate 1 and James White debate 2. Together, James White comes out on top I think and I now understand why he was debating the way he was in this first debate. It was a very tactical approach. That said, Dr Riddle did bring some good arguments and rhetoric to bear and that is to be commended. Thank you again for the debates explain apologetics.
exactly. white even announced that approach ahead of time!
To be sure, while winning an argument seems great, you have to ask what it means to win. Does it mean persuading more people to your side than the other guy? Does it mean outwitting your opponent and leaving them flatfooted regardless of who is right and who is wrong? James White doesn't come to "win" a debate as much as he comes to articulate his position in contrast to an opposing position. If his focus was to simply "win", then important parts of his position will inevitably be left out of his presentation. So here he's articulating a single position in two debates. His goal is to help people understand what he believes and why he believes it. In that respect he wins every time.
@@jimpemberton well said
@@paulwarren29 Thought I'd add a time stamp to the point you made earlier about White's approach (52:00 - 55:00)
@@jimpembertonexcellent point!
I thought Dr. Riddle did rather well. He gave me something new to think about regarding the ending of Mark.
Both speakers did really great and it was very educational for those interested in learning.
The evidence is really overwhelming. God preserved His Word through the years, not just after the 19th century.
@@really2k1, The word of our God endures forever (Isaiah 40:8). No doubt there. But is Mark 16:9-20 his word? That is the question.
T77 K, I didn't find his arguments compelling at all.
@@ExplainApologetics I disagree brother JW was well and truly beaten, he lost the debate and Prasie the Lord for that.
Excellent debate. Thank you for posting this.
Thank you!
What an absolute gem! Very thankful to have found this video. Like and Subscribed!👍
Glad it helped! Thank you!
Looking forward to listening to this. Both debaters are highly intelligent men and this should be good!
Both of them are highly intelligent and so are you brother. Should have you on someday :)
STF - You should get James on your channel sometime.
thanks for hosting this debate, a very important event this one... finally, JW and Riddle is doing a proper debate...
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
20:15 - In Ad Hedibiam, the composition that White is referencing here, Jerome is plainly recycling Eusebius' earlier work Ad Marinum. What we have here is just Eusebius' comment, and Eusebius comment again as boiled down by Jerome. Both Eusebius and Jerome recommend to their correspondents that Mark 16:9-20 should be retained.
Are you going to debate White any time soon?
@@tshkrel , I would be glad to debate James White regarding the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20.
@@JamesSnapp That would be a most interesting debate though I doubt Dr White would be interested as while he doesn't agree with you I would imagine he would say that equitable eclecticism does not undermine our ability to apologetically defend the reliability of the new Testament in the way that TR onlyism does because it is a critical methodology that can be consistently applied. Dr Boyce might though...
PS would you mind pointing me to any lectures or articles that would help me (a layperson studying textual criticism who doesn't read koine) to understand equitable eclecticism and how it differs from reasoned. Thank you so much in advance.
@@JamesSnapp thank you sir
I'll have a look at those...
@@Michael-uk3pj , Sure: attend my lectures in the online series Intro to NT Textual Criticism, here at RUclips. They are free.
There seemed to be two different debates going on. Dr. White was debating against the TR only position and Dr Riddle was debating the longer ending of Mark. From that perspective, I do think Dr. Riddle won the debate. With other comments, I do have to agree that Dr. Riddle brought a very strong case. In fact, he brought a very strong case without using his TR only-ism as an argument, very impressive. Also, I agreed with Dr Riddle on his comments about presupp and his comparison to an atheist asking a Christian about "proof". If Dr. White was being honest, he would have to admit he takes a very similar stance with other topics. The two just differ on what it applies to. However, I will also say it was nice to see an in-house debate between two brothers in Christ rather than something more adversarial in nature. I would also mention that those calling one or the other heretics and condemning one or the other to hell, should be completely ashamed of themselves. If seeing a position that disagrees with your own causes that much anger and hatred in your heart toward someone, something is seriously wrong.
I think you make a good points. Though considering how Dr. White has argued in the past and argues in general, more particular is argumentation style it might be plausible to think his strategy was show that foundation of Riddle's argumentation is flawed and therefor in light of that argumentation his support for the longer ending of Mark has no particular foundation, could be wrong. I've yet to finish the debate at this point.
to further clarify my above statement it seems is strategy is to show that Dr. Riddle's TR only-ism is what drives his belief that x text is inspired rather then the evidence. That might have caused him to take a step back in the first debate judging from the comments, but becomes more clear in the second. Perhaps we could say it's a ropa-dope of sorts.
I noticed that too. White seemed to turn the debate from a matter of "Is the LE of Mark 16 the original?" into "Is Riddle's worldview helpful?" I also noticed that he seemed to dismiss Riddle's larger argument regarding the citations of Mark 16 by early Church Fathers and even enemies of the church (eg., Celcus) and transformed it into, "I never denied the LE of Mark 16 was old!", but never expanded on whether or not Riddle's sources were worth considering. His statement that there were no manuscripts was equally problematic, since textual variants and eyewitnesses aren't limited to just manuscripts.(For example, if a Church Father quotes a passage of scripture and changes it a bit, that's considered a textual variant.)
I don't fully agree with the Confessional Text position, but I think Dr. Riddle definitely gave White a lot more to work with, over and against the KJVO crowd he's used to.
I just would like to point you to the title of the debate. It was the TR vs the CT. Part 1 emphasizing the longer ending of Mark and part 2 Ephesians. So the debate as a whole is about which text but focusing on a particular passage. Neither was in error with their approach, Dr. White aimed at the whole debate and used Mark as a platform and Dr. Riddle just focused on Mark. It is a little different to debate in 2 parts with one overarching theme but not unheard of.
@Arminius uh not sure what you mean by such great evidence. Could you explain? An issue I think I see in your comment is when you say, "They threw the ending of mark [sic] out based on this?" I think I would place caution on saying they "threw out" as it is misleading, it is an overstatement. The longer ending is included in most translations it's merely bracketed which is an indication that it wasn't found in earlier manuscripts. That's just honest. Frankly as White and others have argued the exclusion of the longer ending doesn't really the affect the Gospel and Riddle's arguments to rebut this point are weak.
"So instead of assuming the ending of mark is true we assume it’s false because we can’t 100% prove it?" - I don't think this is correct. I ask, do we accept things as true without evidence? Generally within academia, ideas and histories, and the like are argued on the basis of evidence. It is a post modern idea to accept something as true without evidence. The earliest known manuscripts don't have the ending, we suggests a scribal insertion. Now if you find an earlier manuscript and the ending is included then there you have it, the longer ending.
"Why are we adopting a default critical position towards the text which has been preserved by the church and the fathers like the atheists do?" - Not sure what you mean by this. Textual criticism is a foreign to most Christians, but to the initiated, of which I would include myself (though I'm a newbie at best), I think it's a great tool in determining what the original text said. I agree with White, I want to know what the Apostles actually wrote as opposed to what tradition says.
"....like the atheists do?""- Skepticism isn't always a bad thing, unlike the Atheist the Christian has a justified reason (on grounds of worldview) to be skeptical of certain concepts and ideas. To compare White and Dan Wallace and other textual critics of being like atheist is just wrongheaded as they aren't doubting that the God exists and from that foundation critiquing the text. Again you make an overstatement.
As a regular listener to Dr. White, and as someone currently holding the validity of modern textual criticism but studying the claims of the confessional/traditional text position, I was very surprised at how uncharitable Dr. White was toward Dr. Riddle. Also, it seems the moderator was rather biased toward White-the comments about the timekeeping were unnecessary and distasteful, even though Riddle should have done better about watching his time. A few observations: 1. It seems Riddle was unable to really locate and address the fundamental presuppositions of modern textual criticism-a big failure, considering I've heard him do this in other contexts. 2. (See 1:11:50 and following) White either completely misunderstood or completely distorted what Riddle was saying when he made the comparison between someone who might ask if any amount of evidence could be presented that would change his view on Mark 16:9-20 and someone who might ask if any amount of evidence could change his belief in the existence of God. The point was not necessarily the parity of the objects in question. Obviously, the doctrine of God is not the same as the question of whether this passage is the word of God. Riddle's point was that the nature of the question was inherently unfair-White poisoned the well. If Riddle said "yes," then he would blatantly contradict his own view. If Riddle said "no," then he would also have to say "no" in other contexts where evidence is not the ground of his faith. I have this problem when I debate my atheist brother all the time, where he wants me to play by his rules-the rules of evidence exclusive of testimony. But if God has given testimony concerning anything, including the preservation of his word, would that not override any evidence that may be presented? Riddle would have been quite justified in calling out White for such an egregious misrepresentation.
Yeah white gets agitated too much in these two debates. But why won’t the other guy mention his name? Kinda weird. Still nothing to get bent out of shape over though
The point of a question like that, and how I've always seen Dr White use them, is to point out the logical flaws of the opponents argument.
@@ChristisLord2023 That would be fine, except his question doesn’t expose a logical flaw. It could just as easily be turned around on White. All it does is rhetorically put Riddle on the defensive which makes him look weak. I’ve since changed my opinion and affirm Dr. Riddle’s “confessional text” view, as he terms it.
Sadly, also changed my opinion about Dr. White. I think he is a very confident public debate interlocutor, but not necessarily at sufficiently demonstrating the truth of his assertions. Someone can be excellent in debate, and really persuade a lot of people, and still be dead wrong. Just because you can knock out your opponent in a fist fight doesn’t prove you fought for a worthy cause. Few know this.
@justincabral1150 what made you switch your view?
@justincabral1150 well put
39:35-39 incredible job on the external evidence for the traditional ending by Riddle. The early patristics citations is huge evidence
Irenaeus.
Irineus buried Dr. White not 6 feet deep, but face down in case he wants to go out he himself going deeper
Hi. I'm from Indonesia. I really happy for this show. But, i hope this show is still record in youtube. Because i must attend meeting in my church. Thank you.
It is recorded :)
@@ExplainApologetics thanks. Jesus bless
Apa kabar
Very interesting and civil debate. I noticed that some comments in the chat replay were critical of the use of manuscripts and human reason to ascertain the original reading of Scripture. I don't understand why that approach is objectionable. We use facts and reason when we translate from one language to another, and every commentator and everyone engaged in expository preaching employs evidence and argument to determine the meaning of Scripture. So why should that approach be forbidden in ascertaining the text of Scripture?
Dean Burgons defence of the last chapter of Mark is superb and should be read by both camps.
Dean Burgon died before a lot of manuscripts have been found and collated. But it wouldn't hurt to read what he wrote anyway.
@@ghostl1124 Thank you for your comment. How many mss have been discovered since Burgon died and how have they impacted upon Mk16?
Looking for a Dean Burgon spreadsheet of letters and verses.
@@jjmulvihill Hi John. Not sure what you're trying to say.
I enjoyed this. Thanks for posting it.
Thank you. So glad you enjoyed it.
Why is Riddle equivocating on the term "Gospel?" There's a difference between the usage when referring to the Good News of Christ and when referring to one of the first 4 books of the New Testament.
Wow, that is striking. Good catch.
If you don’t have a resurrected Christ, you have no Gospel, no Good News of Christ.
And we have Christ resurrected in Mark 16:1-8, @@ethanlafont5073: read verse 6.
@@bowrudder899 Indeed. It seems Dr. Riddle rebuttal was fallacious. The Resurrection is both implied by the empty tomb and explicated by the angels, "He is risen." Not to be too hard on Ethan, but his comment ironically shows the error in Riddle's arguing. Riddle's argument, that is 'his hypothetical' (which is also ironic btw seeing that he poo-pooed White's use of hypotheticals during cross exam), '[w]hat if a Church only had Mark?' Implies the very error that Ethan unintentionally picked up on, '[i]f you don’t have a resurrected Christ, you have no Gospel, no Good News of Christ.'
But of course that is to misrepresent the facts.
I think he answered it, at least in part, by mentioning that many early churches only had one copy of one gospel to go by and that, without the resurrection being included in Mark, many churches that only had the Gospel of Mark would have an incomplete testimony.
I’m amazed that Dr. Riddle made the claim that evidence is basically irrelevant to his belief in Christianity. I think an ounce of evidence is worth a pound of presumption.
You do the work of God our brother in Christ. God bless you mr Jeff Riddle
Interesting debate. Regarding the quotes from the church fathers, in which they explicitly quote from the Textus Receptus - identical to manuscripts from the 9th, 10th century - there is a guy here on RUclips with a channel called "Kongebarn" (a Norwegian guy) in which he has summarized many of these passages. The church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd century are actually quoting passages exactly as in the Textus Receptus, and NOT as they appear in the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. So, whatever you think about this stuff - these "younger" manuscripts, with the long ending of Mark, the Johannine comma, the story of the adulterous woman that Jesus saved from stoning - they did not come out of thin air. They are very old, probably older than the "critical text".
I feel bad for Whoever thinks riddle won.
Claiming that God preserved his word lime he said he would isn't losing...
@@joshuascott8521 that's not what the debate is about buddy
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this but at around 1:31:00, John MacArthur. He uses the argument proposed by Dr. Riddle.
I love Dr White's apologetics ministry and his incisive study of the doctrine of justification in his book, The God Who Justifies. He is a faithful worker in the Lord's vineyard. Having been introduced to this particular question by Dr Joel Beeke, in his Reformation Heritage Study Bible, and, further by Nick Sayers's comments on his Textus Receptus Academy website, wherein his citing of Greek scholar Dr Babiniotis, a native Greek-speaker, a Greek language dictionary author, a Christian theologian, as well as an astute scholar of Church History, thus particularly well adapted to speak authoritatively on this and related Greek language difficulties posed by omitting certain words and/or phrases, to whole passages from the Greek text, I find Dr Riddle's arguments far more likely, far more persuasive than the position taken by Dr White.
The TR has readings that appear nowhere else in any manuscript. You find it persuasive that the TR in these instances have the correct reading despite the fact that there's no evidence for them anywhere else in history?
@@stephenmcdonaldjr No, what's ridiculous is you asserting that the TR is correct even where it is obviously wrong with no evidence because "We must have lost the manuscripts!"
@@stephenmcdonaldjr Obviously, but what is ridiculous is the idea that ALL evidence of particular readings from the TR have been lost, and you have no evidence that they were lost, how early they were, etc. That's absurd. Your argument is essentially "but there COULD have been a lot of manuscripts and we've lost all of them... so therefore it must be correct"
That makes absolutely 0 logical sense and is an insult to Christian intellect.
@@michaelmannucci8585there is evidence of people quoting it all the way back to 180 A.D
@@hitlard5305 I guess the guy in this debate didn't know that? lol
Also, I seee the original guy deleted his comments. Hopefully a step in the right direction.
I sense a James White vs James Snapp debate soon on this topic.
Look at those ad stops. Good grief. This kills me.
Get RUclips premium then, pretty simple solution. No?
I would love to see a discussion/debate between James White and Jay Dyer, or James Snapp Jr. Now that would be extremely entertaining, besides being very enlightening for many of White's supporters.
Who is Jay Dyer ?
They have not addressed the ascension. Luke would be the only witness of the ascension if Mark finished at 16:8
Iain, But considering that the Western Text doesn't support the relevant part of Luke 24:51, James White -- if he is to be consistent by avoiding passages deemed "dubious" -- only has a Gospels-text that has *no* narrative of Christ's ascension.
@@JamesSnapp Luke records the Ascension at the beginning of the book of Acts, which is the direct sequel to his Gospel
This is really presupp vs evidentialism. Divine preservation vs human reconstruction. Theism vs humanism. The church vs the academy. Pastor Riddle representing the former and Dr. White the latter.
Very well stated and accurate.
This is accurate, and white is staunch in his presuppositionalism in every other aspect of apologetics except for here. Everybody comes to this issue with presuppositions, according to White’s typical view on things, so it’s either a preservation or reconstruction take. Way to observe that.
I agree. What’s strange is JW is a presupp apologist on everything except this topic.. I appreciated the question posed to him asking him to address inconsistency of his position with presupp apologetics. Although he doesn’t see the inconsistency, I do.
@@Kittensarevicious what inconsistencies?
James believes God preserved his word through the entire manuscript tradition, not just the tradition passed through Erasmus. Not even Erasmus would agree with Riddle. God did preserve His word, and He preserved it even better than we could ever have known.
These debates give me a picture of what the Pharisees trying to prove how intelligent they were must have looked like.
What about the MEV translation that uses the Majority/Received text? Well?
Loving and praising God this morning for EVERYTHING! He alone is worthy of our adoration and worship...
“You alone are the Lord.
You have made the heavens,
The heaven of heavens with all their host,
The earth and all that is on it,
The seas and all that is in them.
You give life to all of them
And the heavenly host bows down before You.”
-Nehemiah 9:6
How amazing it is that the Creator of the universe loves us and wants us with Him forever!
Jesus said...
“I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
-John 14:6
If you do not know the LORD, please do not wait another moment...
“Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”
-2 Corinthians 6:2
None of us knows how long we have on this earth. The only opportunity we are guaranteed to have is right now...
A: Admit you have Sinned
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
-Romans 3:23
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
-Romans 6:23
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
-1 John 1:9
It is tough to admit that we are wrong. Even before God, we feel we are basically good, and we would like to think we are never as bad as some... we are ALL sinners and can never be good enough to earn our own way to heaven. Jesus spoke to the scribes and Pharisees saying,
“Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?”
-Matthew 23:33
They believed that faithfully following rituals and traditions would get them into heaven. We are all like those scribes and Pharisees when we believe we can save ourselves by good works or following religious rituals and traditions. That path takes us to one place only... hell!
Please listen, there is a way...
The ONLY WAY...
B: Believe in Jesus our Savior
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
-John 3:16-17
“So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
-Acts 16:31
“And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the Name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.”
-1 John 3:23
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” -Ephesians 2:8-9
Salvation is not complicated.
Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”
- Mark 10:15
A child simply puts their trust (faith) in their parents protective arms. Likewise, we entrust our life to Jesus our Savior, believing on Him and His finished work on the cross. The Apostle Paul defined the message of the Gospel (good news) like this-
“...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,”
- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
Jesus, the perfect, sinless lamb, the Son of God, laid down His life and took the death penalty meant for us, dying in our place (read Isaiah 53:6). He paid the debt we could not pay and redeemed us (bought us back) from the power of sin and death. (read John 1:29 / Galatians 3:13 / Romans 3:25)
C: Confess Jesus is Lord and Savior
“...that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
-Romans 10:9-10
“The LORD is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”
-2 Peter 3:9
God fulfilled His promise, sending His one and only Son to die in our place. He has offered us the most precious gift-salvation, the forgiveness of sin, eternal life with Him in heaven. BUT…we must receive that gift. We must confess our sins (read 1 John 1:9 ) and proclaim our faith (belief) in the death, burial and resurrection of God’s only begotten son, our Savior Jesus. Confessing with our mouth requires an outward, public action, not a secret, hidden, timid faith. The Apostle Paul boldly proclaimed his faith so that others could hear and be saved. God’s plan of salvation is freely offered to everyone.
If you are not familiar with prayer, it is simply talking to God openly and honestly.
Remember, the Bible says we are saved by grace through faith. God sees our heart. We are not saved by simply saying some special words in a formal prayer. We are saved when we reach out by faith, admit our sin, repenting from believing our actions save us to belief in Jesus and His sacrifice for us, confessing Him as our Lord and Savior. Saving faith produces a forever changed life.
The Bible is God’s message to us. It’s readily available even online. Please read it.
Your death penalty has been paid- you have been pardoned...
The choice is yours to accept it or not. We’re all headed to one of two places - heaven or hell. Will you please accept the LORD’s gift of love today?
“Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
- Luke 15:10
To me fact that Ireneus cited longer ending in 180 a.c is strong argument for TR. Also, how you can believe in what is written in 2 Tm 3:16-17 if you reject part which I think is like 99%+ of the Bibles?
Listening to this at work is extremely annoying with all the ads jam packed in it.
A question to be answered is, is the text as it was when it left the hands of the writer that is canonical, or the text as it was when that book was recognized as Scripture that is canonical?
The closest to the autographs. Read some Wilber Pickering books. One is called "God has preserved his text". Another great one is "Family 35".
What is this "ECM of Mark" that Dr. White talks about @1:38:25 ? I've tried to Google that with no success.
Seems to be "Editio Critica Maior".
@BenBRockN This is in reference to the computerizing going on in the scholarly world of textual criticism. This is known as Coherence Based Genealogical Method, or simply CBGM. @Christopher Ely is correct, I added the former because it is the method being used to construct the ECM. Which may be the reason you had "no success" in your initial Google search. Soli Deo Gloria!
We have confirmation that Mark 16:9-10 were always part of the original manuscript:
- They are found in the Alexandrian, Old Syriac, and Latin Codices. They were known to Augustine, Ambrose, and Lawin, bishop of Rome (also known as "the high-ranking one"). They are also mentioned in the explanatory remarks of Theophilactus, the Greek.
- Irenaeus of the second century referred to Mark 16:16-19
- Hippolytus of the third century confirmed verses 9-20.
(The True Guidance, part Three)
Explain apologetics, does RUclips despise the content of this debate? Or did you select to have a huge number of ads for this debate?
No, it was the default setting and we just sorted it out. The video was originally not monetized, but after requesting a review, it seemed to be messed up.
Did anybody ever find out what that cryptic message about the Cadillac Café was about? I wonder if it was a clever way for the KGB to signal agents in the field.
I'm so thankful for, and encouraged, and more educated by this. Doc White being a hero of mine, and thanks to him. All glory belongs solely to God alone. That being said, this video has an absurd amount of monitized adds.
Just finished the debate, and I got to say that Dr Riddle gave an excellent defense for his belief. And although I do appreciate and respect Dr White 👊, Its my opinion that Riddle brought it home, and if nothing else, gave more to chew on than the "A typical" KJVO/TRO crowd. This has been a personal study for myself for quite some time, and I'm still learning, but if I had to choose or be put in a camp, I would side with the confessional text onlyists.
So what is the endgame? Should the longer ending of Mark not be printed? Should we keep it and just talk about it the margins?
A lot of the letters intercepted by those who wrote in the name of 'Paul' sounds like 'Paul' as well..
Probably could have summarized Dr. James White's position on the longer ending of Mark 16 by saying, "Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus end Mark 16 at verse 8, and therefore, I don't care if 99.8% of all the extant Greek manuscripts have verses 9 - 20, I am devoted to the (so-called) older readings, and that is that." The End.
It wasn't really debated well here, but Vaticanus text in three columns per page has the third column empty where the longer ending should be. This is the only place in Vaticanus where such an empty column exists without an obvious reason.
Sinaiticus shows the copyist knew the longer ending existed but filled the column where it would fit by expanding his text lettering and spacing to try and avoid leaving the next column entirely blank before starting Luke 1:1 in the next column over. In other words, there was room for the longer version if compacted, but it was omitted. Yet, both copyists wanted to leave space in case someone (the manuscript owner) might want to put it back in. Those copyists in Alexandria likely had a copy without the long ending, perhaps due to an earlier copyist error or the final page containing verses 9-20 was lost, and they appear to have been undecided but thought it best to leave space should the verses need to be added later.
So, the early manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus chose to omit the long ending, though it was known to the copyists. The long ending appears in Codex Washingtonensis (400s AD), Codex Alexandrinus (500 AD), and Codex Ephraemi (500 AD). Justin Martyr (165 AD) may have quoted from the longer ending, Irenaeus (185 AD) quoted from Mark 16:19 of the longer ending, and Papias (mid-100's AD) wrote of Barsabbas drinking poison and not dying, an allusion to Mark 16:19. There is a quote from bishop Vincentius (256 AD) that alludes to Mark16:15-18. Let's just summarize by saying the longer ending was known and used and quoted very early in church history.
It is interesting how the long ending is utterly NOT what anyone would write if you simply wanted to finish the end of the book on a positive note. Mark uses symbolic imagery that retains the ideas about the New Covenant expressed elsewhere in the Bible. These signs do follow all those who believe:
1. Cast out demons in My name -- In evangelizing the lost, Christ has cast down Satan so that His Church will be built. Demons are cast out when Christ saves anyone, and the Holy Spirit now indwells that one.
2. Speak new languages -- Again, a sign indicating a true believer because their mouth speaks out of a new resurrected spirit, as prophets of God declaring the words of God. The temporary gift of tongues signified the universality of salvation to all nations (tongues), but the believer would speak, no matter their original language, the word of God.
3. Take up snakes - A reference to Christ's power over Satan (the serpent) and the believers' power to free the lost from Satan's control.
4. If they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them -- here, Mark connects the believer to Christ such that false gospel deceivers (spewing a poison gospel metaphorically) cannot harm God's people. Satan's works are like a poison; they taste good but kill you (because you end up trusting a false gospel that cannot save.)
5. Lay hands on the sick, and they will be well -- The important sickness is not physical but spiritual, a sickness that leads to eternal death. But, in Christ comes spiritual healing, which is why Jesus healed the sicknesses during His ministry, to demonstrate physically and by way of metaphor that He was the solution to their otherwise hidden but critically sick spiritual state if they were to live eternally.
Undoubtedly, at least one copyist who had Mark 16:8-20 in front of him found this last part rather an odd language and, not understanding its metaphoric implication, simply chose to drop it out of his copy. Henceforth, that copy traveled about Alexandria locally and was used for Siniaticus and Vaticanius. Meanwhile, outside this one line of copying that was missing the long ending, every other copyist included it just as Mark wrote it.
This was a great discussion and debate ! some of the side comments were disappointing and I think Sam Shamoun gets the award for being the most annoying and volatile.
I just heard Dr. Riddle commit the equivocation fallacy. He equivocated on the word "gospel" using 1 Cor. 15 to do it. However, the word "gospel" there is referring to the message of the death, burial, and Resurrection. The word "Gospel" refers to the b biographies of Jesus.
There is no fear of God in the heart of someone who tries to discredit the Word of God. No one is able to remove anything from the Bible for: "I have perceived that everything that God has done will be lasting. And to this there is nothing to be added, and from it there is nothing to be taken away. And God has done this so that in His presence men fear Him."
Ecclesiastes 3:14
"Spurgeon loved the King James Version of the Bible - it was the version he used the most. But Charles Spurgeon was not King James only. On occasion, Spurgeon mentioned textual variants from the pulpit. Sometimes he even rejected the reading of the KJV in favor of the reading in the critical Greek text, represented in the Revised Version..." -- Was Spurgeon King James Only? Elijah Hixson January 18, 2018
I really enjoyed this debate. Both gentlemen were respectful, thoughtful, and very interesting. It did go a little downhill as soon as x-examination started though. I was sad to hear Dr. Riddle immediately and consistently do everything the moderator asked both participants not to do.
20:27 - "There's reasons to disagree about that" - What are they? D. C. Parker seems absolutely convinced (see Living Text of the Gospels) that Jerome was condensing Eusebius' work.
It would be interesting to see Dr White and you debate this topic. I hope that happens one day.
I would like to see that too.
@@bowrudder899 , And I would like to see that too!
If he doesn't, I can imagine why he wouldn't: I think Sam was right: the real target here was the TR movement, and since you don't represent that, @@JamesSnapp, he may not be interested in the topic. The topic was a means to an end: to debate TR-only-ism.
Watching from Philippines ❤
@arnoldgarga7073
Thank you for the kind comment.
19:55 - and Jerome included Mark 16:9-20 in the Vulgate, too.
James White said, "if we found ten copies of Mark, that all ended at v20, and there was no doubt that they were genuine, I would change my position". So why don't you debate Dr. David Daniels about the authenticity of Sinaiticus? I think he has found sufficient evidence to prove that it is a later document. If it could be proven to you that Sinaiticus was written in the 1800's and not 350 AD, would you change your position then? I'm aware that Dr. David Daniels has sent you this information
Probably because there’s no money in debating David Daniels
@@Matthew-bu5pq lol there wasn't money in this either almost assuredly.
Yet one manuscript ( codex Sinaiticus) that stops at verse 8 and your position changed.
One of the worst assumptions of textual critics is the foundation of "older is better" especially since sainaticus had no parents or children (exemplars or copies of) and that Paul himself amongst other writings including early church fathers warned against false teachings. This mean there was very early heretical works, even while paul was alive.. So finding MSS that is older is not necessarily closer to the autographs.
Read Wilber Pickerings "Family 35".
Timestamp- 22:44 FF
"One of the first things I was taught as a very young man is that you never build a dogma or a doctrine with a disputed text of Scripture." If any text can be disputed when an "earlier manuscript" is found, can there be any dogma or doctrine, including the doctrine of coming to a true reading of the Word of God through White's form of textual criticism? This/his very practice is self defeating, as all the texts, by his standard, seem to be disputable.
When Dr. White argues it's more about perception and presupposition rather than exclusively the text evidence, hence what you just asked should have been the refrain to Riddle's argumentation, looping like a background beat in a music track.
That singular question is what kills the root of Dr. White's argumentation in terms of worldview, however Dr. Riddle is not as experienced or tactical a debater as Dr. White and so he didn't run his track as smoothly as Dr. White, so to speak. Dr. Riddle was great, so was Dr. White, but he definitely didn't "win" like some comments suggest. However, in terms of objective analysis of either argument alone, that question you posed is what makes Riddle's case.
There seems to be a fundamental flaw in the argument saying that if the gospel of Mark doesn't include resurrection appearances then it wouldn't be a sufficient gospel. The flaw is the fact that there had to be a time before the Gospel of Mark or any gospel was written in which case where was the sufficient gospel then?
Riddle is arguing that presented on its own the Gospel of Mark would be insufficient. That begs the question, when did it become the case that if something wasn't written down it couldn't be shared by other means? The gospel must have been shared orally before it was written. There is an arbitrary standard being applied by Riddle that people can't be saved unless the written gospel they are given contains post-resurrection appearances.
42:34 - When a scholar proposed a /mimic,/ as Kelhoffer did, the text can't win. "Doesn't sound like Mark" = evidence against Mark as the source, and "Sounds like Mark" also = evidence against Mark as the source.
check out the wall behind Dr James
James White's assumption that because the tomb was empty, this means Jesus was resurrected. However, the Pharisees made it clear that the disciples could have easily just taken the body. To assume that Martin's with an empty tomb, means that Jesus has been resurrected is fallacious. Any new Christian reading that gospel ending at verse 8 would be confused as to why none of the Resurrection prophecies had been fulfilled. This is why Jesus appearing to the disciples is so important! The Pharisees knew this, why can't James White see this
Amen
I find it extremely hard to believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire an instrument of record on Messiah's incarnation to end, "And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." Those who use the four most corrupted, corrected copies, that not only disagree among themselves but also with the majority of existing manuscripts, as the most reliable, are not exercising textual criticism. It was sad to see James White use his rebuttal time to attack the person of his opponent and his beliefs, rather than the evidence he presented. Belittling ones opponent in a debate rather than disputing their evidence, proves that one's own position cannot solely be supported based on existing evidence. This become abundantly clear when James White begins arguing from evidence that does not exist 53:25, in an effort to prove a weakness in Dr. Riddle's position, while ignoring the evidence he did present. It is rare to find a debater that resorts to personal attacks and hypothesis to defend their position, when they have enough abundant evidence to do the same. If Mark's Gospel was the earliest gospel, and was the only New Testament scripture available to the early assemblies, it seems logical that the early opponents to The Gospel would find it fitting to end Mark's Gospel at verse 8 of the 16th chapter. It was unfortunate to see James White more in opposition to the Textus Receptus, and the person of Dr. Riddle, rather than the evidence supporting the reading of a shorter reading of Mark's Gospel.
Riddle contradicts himself saying that he is not kjv only when he claims those who do not use the kjv do not have the bible. He still doesn't seem to understand what the revisers of the BISHOPS BIBLE/1611 kjv translators said in their letter to the reader that absolutly no modern kjv contains, that alone is a MAJOR CORRUPTION.
My 1611, exact copy of the origional (except for font size and font difference, both because of size for readability- all content and spelling is exactly the same) includes the letter, which refutes onlyism at EVERY SINGLE POINT of attempted argumentation. Riddle is incompetent in his attempted argument for the longer ending, slipping in short statements of onlyism directly, and indirectly by implication.
Also, it would be patently absurd to ignore the thousands of Greek New Testament MANUSCRIPTS found after the BISHOPS BIBLE REVISION, whose revisers/translators would have rebuked onlyists and onlyism (started by 7th day adventist Benjamin G Wilkinson in his book from 1930). Riddle uses a REVISED CORRUPTION without the 1611s more than 8400 marginal and reference notes, containing (just as all formal translations- revisions- do) untranslated words and dynamic equivalence of phrases and sentences, word inconsistency in translated words and capitalization of words of deity, etc. TRs that all (more than 30 different TRs) disagree with each other and the majority text and the 1611. Too much too explain here.
I am neither Calvinist or Arminian, just a born again Christian who teaches biblical doctrines in the PLAIN LANGUAGE they are given in, using context and always trying to rightly or carefully divide or handle. I utilize the Greek most of the time and use the HGP- historical Greek Pronunciation, not the favorite of English speakers, the Erasmian, which Erasmus did not use by all accounts. Most of the differences being: certain vowels being interchangeable, digraphs instead of dipthongs, h sound added to vowels with a rough breathe mark, several letters being pronounced a more gutteral or softer sound and some - oh instead of ah, some containing eta instead of ata, hee instead of ch, etc.
Fascinating neither Arminian or Calvinist. Just born again.
I trust centuries of Christian tradition more than very recent (19th century) modern scholarship.
Amen
The people writing the Confessions in the 17th century AD also did not have the archaeological discoveries in the Dead Sea scrolls and assumed the Messoretic text was authoritative.
37:20 - Lunn provides more details about this in his book, "The Original Ending of Mark - A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20."
John Macarthur has a sermon on the topic too: ruclips.net/video/ze7QaUhFmQw/видео.html
Upload to podcast?
I understand that an ancient Syriac Manuscript, called the Curetonian Syriac is reported to have some of the text of Mark 16 visible. Although most of these verses are lost in part due to damage. However, it has a remnant of Mark 16:17-20 intact (with “in their hands” in verse 18). This implies that this MMS had the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 in total when first transcribed.
It is also reported that this manuscript is older than any Greek MMS. That is, "older" than the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus. So the argument that the Greek MMS being the "oldest" and therefore correct falls flat!!
I believe in the providence of God. Two things here. The bible says that if one seeks Him with all your heart you will find Him. The Holy Sprint will bring you into all truth. And, if we have a washy washy bible text that is full of errors that cause doubt and dispute. Then we are on the sea with no compass. We will be tossed around by the wind. God knows this "and" so does Satan. Remember he is the accuser of the believers.
I trust God with all of my heart and not mans scheming ways. He will light my path for me to go in the right (righteous) direction and keep me on solid ground!!
Check out wilber Pickering. He has some great books you would like.
13:20: What exactly is the "inordinate number of variants" that renders a 12-verse passage questionable according to White? Quickly looking at Mark 16:9-20 in Swanson's line by line comparison of readings, I count 77 variants. In Luke 24:42-53: 78.
I'm happy for James White he didn't know you were attending the chat. Ha ha ha ha !
I agree with you Mark is original, I know you think so, even though I havent heard your known reasons told yet. I was convinced by Hatun Tash, she explained to us once, Ireneas quotes from it. And that its possible a page fell off the end of a Mark copy that was being taken to some region, and that made it so some have a gospel of Mark without it.
1:13:06 …
Can anyone explain to me Dr Riddle's argument that the longer ending of Mark promotes cessationism?
Even if the signs are only for the apostles which I don't see from the text I still don't see how this particular text even insinuates that those signs are going to cease...
Please read Matthew Poole's commentary on those verses.
@@ernestorodriguez4742 thank you I'll try to find that
Mark 16:20- would see those signs fulfilled in the ministries of the apostles- so they are the ‘signs of an apostle’ mentioned by Paul.
Look p152 of Macarthurs- ‘Strange Fire’ for the cessationist line.
I was once a TR advocate, but i came to realize that it's a position we hold because we don't like the consequences of the opposite view. In other words, the text HAS to be preserved in such and such a way. As JW clearly demonstrated, there is nothing that could change JR's mind. Because JR has not arrived at his position looking at the evidence.
There is plenty of evidence thst scripture has been preserved, but Whites inability to see it is because he has been successfully indoctrinated into the critical text teachings. In his mind, men determine the truth instead of believing God already did it. "Older is better", "go with the more difficult reading" and, "go with the shorter reading" are huge assumptions that critical text proponents believe and virtually the only foundation used to determine a better reading in that school of thought. They put them selves above the text in claiming it needs reconstructed (by men from what God has already done) instead of investigating how God already preserved it.
Check out some Wilber Pickering books. He has one called "God has preserved his text" and another good one "Family 35".
So you think God did not perfectly preserve his word and allowed the devil to take the word of God from mankind? If you think this you don't know our God
@@Ponder_the_Cross I get it. I was once also too affraid to face the facts. But that's not faith. That's fear and blind faith. That's, by the way, what keeps muslims believing the quran no matter what. We should be better than that.
@@piano9433you speak of blind faith as if it is a bad thing, also why would an all powerful God that can create an entire universe and speak it into existence allow his word to be taken from his people? It just doesn't make any sense to believe that we do not have God's word. Also, you shouldn't accuse me of not facing the facts because I don't even know how many hours of comparative textual analysis I've done between the manuscripts and translations
@@Ponder_the_Cross If you engage in this kind of reasoning ("why would a an all powerful god...?"), you may end up loosing your faith. Why would an all powerful God let the serpent into the Garden? Why would an all powerful God watch hundreds of kids die of cancer everyday? Why would an all knowing God describe the sky as a dome like ancient near east myths? etc That's the kind of reasoning that makes people turn atheists.
I think they should leave it in but leave a note as the do in the NRSV that it is not found in the earliest texts, however the Bible says not to add or remove. It is not our job to determine whether it was in the originals or not. These are texts which are almost two thousand years old.
39:08 - And why should we ignore Irenaeus' MSS as evidence? Because Irenaeus didn't live in Egypt where the papyrus would tend to be better preserved?
Agreed. If Irenaeus is quoting the beginning and ending of Mark(v. 20) in 190 A.D., it only seems logical that it is original. It seems like this would settle the argument fairly easily.
Is the debate on the long ending of Mark or what would convince Jeff Riddle to abandon his view?
yes
He won't abandon the truth though. He won't criticize the text and question God's preserved way.
Hard to tell who won the debate itself. Dr. James White was quite excellent in the cross-examination for sure. However, Dr. Riddle's overall position is much stronger I believe. What he said at the end really hammered that home. At the end of the day, White doesn't really have a Bible, but only an arrangement of documents that is every changing.
I found it funny that White accuses the Reformers of being unorthodox and the foundation for all his claims was himself. He must be omniscient to know what scribes actually did or thought when they themselves didn’t say.
Did he actually say the Reformers were unorthodox? Or that they were working with limited manuscripts and knowledge of the transmission of the texts and thus their viewed is heavily slated? And we can provide reasonable explanations for scribal errors, additions, or subtraction based on exterior factors without attempting to pretend we are omniscient
@@krampus3901 James White doesn't seem to understand; the reformers view of preservation was a theological standpoint. Therefore, they would not have changed their view if they'd had more manuscripts, because they based their theology on what Scripture says about itself, rather than what men dig out of the sand.
Dr. White clearly did not say the reformers were unorthodox. The question was is the long ending orthodox then it became were the people who created it unorthodox. This is an odd question to begin with because he would not say these are unbelievers trying to teach falsehood by creating this reading. He clearly said multiple times it likely rose from the desire to harmonize (like we see over and over in the manuscripts). And that the person/s probably didn't have complete bound new testaments, that they studied endlessly, and then created it (as in should be completely orthodox but chose to be unorthodox). You don't have to be omniscient to understand humans especially when you have thousands of examples of what they were doing (like harmonizing) or combining variants later (because of persecution i.e. manuscripts being burned/ Christians killed or just to not risk losing any material by adding stuff in margins or putting two varaints together in a new copy.)
@@bradenpowell3824 Their position on the nature of scripture was theological yet they did not think a magical copy fell from the sky and they did not ignore variants.
They compared manuscripts and understood its easy for mistakes to be made when copying something or that texts can grow over time. The proof of this is simple, Beza's printed Greek text went through multiple different editions, he used printed editions and other manuscripts to choose readings and printed them (he did textual criticism and also donated codex D because of the weird readings in it). Erasmus did the same thing as well as Stepanus. These are what came to be known as the T.R. So your point is invalid and misses the issue. Beza, Erasmus, Stephanus and really all of the reformed orthodox scholars like Owen, etc. did not have 5,000+ manuscripts, then picked out 12-20 late ones for a theological reason, and reject the rest. They did research using what manuscripts they had available (as well as other translations) to determine what they thought were the original readings. Even with that being the reality, they of course should and did believe like what was quoted from the 1689.
These various printed editions of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus were used to make an English translation that was commissioned by a King (kjv), it became popular, then later a person tried to determine which readings the translation committees chose from those various printed editions, and then printed those readings into one book, and as a marketing tool called it the "the recieved text". Fast forward even further now you have people arguing the product of all of that (a 17th century thing) is the exact thing the apostles wrote despite there is not a single manuscript that reads the same as the different printed t.r. editions or the printed editions used to translate the kjv.
Jacob Smith by logical implication he did just that. It is also Mr. Buying a doctorate from a degree mill does not give one the right to use the title. The Reformers also flat out rejected the position of Mr White. In their dealing with John Goodwin, a precursor to the modern view, they condemned him as an heretic in part for his view of Scripture. Mr White has no definitive text of Scripture at any point as for him it could be changed in the future by new manuscript discoveries. This makes any attempts at formulating doctrine pointless as on Mr White’s position, that doctrine could be undone at any time by future discoveries and of course changing philosophies and methods of textual criticism. Mr White’s position is nothing more than skepticism at its logical conclusion
14:11 - "Different locations" - What MSS, specifically? What are these "different locations"?
I'd never watched a debate where Dr White lost except this one.
@Daniel 7 I don't think so.
Watch his debate with Trent horn on OSAS, he lost that one.
So scholars say the Book Mark came first so if the earlier manuscripts didn’t have the longer version so maybe the stories grew
Part 1 - Analysis Of James White's Views In His Debate Versus Jeff Riddle
00:08:40 - [ULTIMATE AUTHORITY] Mr White asks the key question: "What is our ultimate authority?" Then he goes on to talk about how he wants to know what the apostles wrote because that is what is inspired. The problem is that for Mr White and the modern school of textual critics, their ultimate authority is themselves, the "Guild" of textual critics, who use their man-made infidel reasoning to decide what is and isn't scripture. Mr White's ultimate authority is himself and his textual critic mates, who have set themselves up as the modern popes who will tell you, o ordinary Christian in the pew, what is and isn't scripture.
The Confessional View of scripture is completely opposed to this false view of epistemology; in the Confessional View our ultimate authority is God's Pure & Preserved Word. God has preserved His Word, our job to is to receive it, read it, love it, live by it, and transmit it to the next generation as it was transmitted to us. We do not raise ourselves up as judges over God's Word, rather we submit ourselves in judgement to it. God's Word is not deemed authentic because of "the Guild", because of this critic, or that critic - but first and foremost by the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. For further reading check out Logos Autopistos by Thomas Ford ( www.westminsterassembly.org/primary-source/logos-autopistos-or-scriptures-self-evidence/ )
00:09:20 - [APPEAL TO MAJORITY, INCONSISTENT] Mr White appeals to the majority of Reformed scholars today sharing his modern critical view of the text. In the lead-up to this debate, Mr White has attempted to poison the well by accusing Dr Riddle of being inconsistent. Mr White loves to paint those who oppose his views as being inconsistent, however Mr White is very inconsistent himself with the argumentation and appeals he makes. If Mr White applied "majority rules" consistently, then in the 4th century Mr White would have been an Arian arguing against Athanasius, and in the 16th century a Papist arguing against Luther. Mr White loves to be "Mr Consistency" but keep an eye out for the inconsistency of his own argumentation and appeals.
00:10:00 - [IGNORANT] Mr White keeps talking about "manuscripts". This is ironic since it shows Mr White has not kept up with the latest and greatest developments in the modern school of textual criticism he champions. The correct terminology (to my knowledge) is now "witnesses".
00:15:45 - [FALSE CLAIM] Mr White says that there isn't enough room in Vaticanus / Sinaiticus to put the traditional ending of Mark into the space at the end. But actually this was proven to be false by James Snapp in April 2016 when he used copy&paste to copy characters from the same page to reconstruct the traditional ending, producing a beautiful picture showing it can fit ( www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/04/codex-vaticanus-and-ending-of-mark.html ). Often both in audio and in his written works Mr White makes very confident grand claims, that upon further research turn out to be false, if only one will do the research. Always fact check anything Mr White says.
00:22:40 - [INCONSISTENT] Mr White says he was taught as a young man that you never build a doctrine or dogma based upon disputed texts. This is not "Reformed" in any way shape or form; for the Reformers built doctrine and dogma on texts they knew to be disputed such as Mark 16:9-20, 1 John 5:7 etc, and they did this knowing that these texts were disputed, because they received these texts as the Word of God, by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit as well as the common faith of the saints. Mr White's own claimed confessional standard, the 1689 London Baptist Confession, quotes Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7 as proof texts, so here Mr White, the self-proclaimed Mr Consistency, is once again being inconsistent. If Mr White believes doctrine should not be built on Mark 16:9-20 then Mr White must renounce the 1689 LBCF and get together with his modernist mates and come up with a modernist baptist confession.
00:23:15 - [FALSE CLAIM] Mr White makes the startling claim that "the evidence is wide spread that in the earliest centuries, it, the longer ending, was not the majority reading". Mr White has proved nothing of the sort. All he has proved is that it was a contested reading. Personally I believe that the evidence is overwhelming that the traditional ending of Mark has absolutely the best and earliest attestation as Dean Burgon has conclusively proved ( www.gutenberg.org/files/36722/36722-pdf.pdf & www.gutenberg.org/files/26134/26134-pdf.pdf ). However note that the Confessional View is ultimately not based on evidence, but on what scripture teaches regarding its own preservation, and a view of history through this presuppositional lens.
00:25:35 - [CONJECTURE] "what if" - Mr White makes conjectures about when Mark may have been written and how that may have led to the later development of the traditional ending. One thing to look out for Mr White and modern critics is that most of what they teach is based on conjecture. They basically just make stuff up but teach it as the authority. Look out for this when they talk about what scribes did, as if they were on the shoulder watching the scribe actually do it. They are just playing guessing games. You want a PhD? Make up a bunch of crap that downgrades the Christian faith you will get PhD, books deals, invited to speak around the world.
00:27:18 - [NOGOSPEL] "what if Mark is a rather effective gospel tract?" - more conjecture. But White's Mark is no gospel because it doesn't contain a resurrection; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 tells us that the resurrection is a key part of the gospel; without the resurrection there is no gospel, no "good news". Mark without 16:9-20 is not just no gospel, but it is the *worst* gospel tract of all time - there is no good news, just a failed false messiah who predicted his own resurrection but it never happened. This is what they teach at seminaries around the world. Dr Riddle will later stand on the authority of scripture and make this point to Mr White from 1 Cor 15:1-4.
00:50:20 [APPEAL TO MAJORITY, INCONSISTENT] Mr White once again appeals to majority, calling Dr Riddle's view "very unique, very minority". This is a false and inconsistent standard for reasons previously highlighted. Furthermore Dr Riddle's view is simply the majority Reformed view of the 16th and 17th century, the fact that it is in the minority today is of no relevance to whether it is correct or not. So Mr White's absolute claim that Dr Riddle's view is "very unique, very minority" is actually a false claim as it is only true in our day, not throughout history.
00:50:40 [CONJECTURE, FALSE CONCLUSION] Mr White makes the argument that the Reformation-era divines who wrote the historical reformed confessions did not possess all the data we had today, implying that if they did they wouldn't have come up with the same doctrines. Apart from being pure conjecture (they could have had for better and older witnesses which we don't have today) this is also an incorrect conclusion; as the Confessional View is first and foremostly based on what scripture teaches about its own preservation, "evidence" doesn't change the position. Mr White here once again shows that he doesn't understand the historical Confessional View of scripture.
00:52:30 [UNBIBLICAL] Mr White rebukes Dr Riddle for "having a theological position, that determines everything he sees in the historical column, in the historical data". Of course Riddle does, just as all Christians should do - the view of scripture, its transmission etc, must be based on scripture first and foremost. Scripture is the ultimate authority and cannot be set aside when we come to the text of scripture or the history of the transmission of the text. What scripture says about itself, its own transmission and preservation, must of necessity form the core set of presuppositions that we hold to when we examine the question of the authentic text. Here Mr White shows that his view is thoroughly UNBIBLICAL; that when it comes to the text of scripture, Mr White sets aside the Bible, and adopts his secular atheistic presuppositions as his ultimate authority.
00:52:45 [HERESY, NOT REFORMED] Mr White mocks and rejects the doctrine of Logos Autopistos. Mr White is completely and utterly not reformed, he is a modernist heretic who has rejected one of the core doctrines of the Reformers concerning the biblical view of the scriptures. At best, if one wishes to be as charitable as possible, Mr White is a New Evangelical with Calvinistic tendencies.
00:58:30 [CONJECTURE, FALSE CONCLUSION] Mr White keeps asking why there are multiple endings? Modern critics like White just make up a story about why there are multiple endings to suit their established conclusion, that the traditional ending is not authentic. They simply can't prove or provide any concrete evidence about why there are multiple endings because that would require a complete video recording and interview with every scribe who ever copied Mark to actually know the exact certain reasons. Modern textual criticism is not a science, it is an art, an art of making stuff up to suit your conclusion.
Part 2
00:59:35 [CONJECTURE, FALSE CONCLUSION] Mr White says the TR has no consistent historical perspective. Mr White claims Erasmus was just doing textual criticism like the modernists do today. E.F Hills ( www.amazon.com/Text-Time-Reformed-Testament-Criticism-ebook/dp/B07DB7ZBLC ) makes the argument that Erasmus was providentially restrained by God through the common faith, such that his more eratic tendencies were confined to the annotations and did not impact the text itelf. I believe E.F Hills is correct here. When Mr White says the TR has no consistent historical perspective, Mr White is denying that God could have preserved His Word using the means that He chose. In contrast the Confessional View sees history through the presuppositional lens of what scripture teaches concerning its own preservation, and simply accepts the means and men God used to preserve His Word.
01:04:15 [MASSAGING THE TRUTH] Dr Riddle points out the craftiness of the modern critical scholars, how they massage their presentation of the evidence to stack the deck in their favour. Mr White is especially guilty of this both in his written and audio/video materials, this is a debating tactic to "win the point", at the expense of sacrificing the truth.
01:06:30 [DIFFICULT QUESTION FOR MR WHITE] Dr Riddle makes the point that Mark couldn't end in γάρ, that would be abrupt and bizarre grammatically. Dr Riddle puts it to Mr White that if the traditional ending is not authentic, then the real ending has been lost, which would contradict what scripture teaches regarding its own preservation. Mr White never really answers this, apart from his conjecture about Mark being a gospel tract to lead into a gospel conversation, which is just that, conjecture.
01:23:40 [CONJECTURE] Mr White makes up a story about how and when the traditional ending of Mark came about as a later development. Someone get this man a legit PhD! Remember and watch out for modern critics like White who invent stories and theories to justify their conclusions and recognise that these are just that, conjectures.
01:27:30 [CONJECTURE] More stories and inventions from Mr White about how the traditional ending of Mark came to be.
01:35:15 [ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, UNBIBLICAL] Mr White says the key issue is "what did the Apostles write? We want to know what the Apostles wrote". The major difference between Mr White & Dr Riddle is that Mr White wants to use his own man-made infidel reasoning and atheistic presuppositions to make himself and his critical scholar mates the ultimate judges of what the Apostles wrote. In contrast Dr Riddle and the Confessional View stands on the authority of scripture that God has preserved His Word as the scriptures teach, and receive, believe and submit to the text that God has preserved. The Confessional View looks at scripture and its transmission through biblical presuppositions and submits itself to scripture, while White's modern critical view divorces itself from what the Bible teaches concerning its own preservation and sets itself up as the judge over the scripture, who will decide what is and isn't scripture.
01:40:28 [NOT REFORMED, UNBIBLICAL] Mr White defines his view of preservation, that "every single original reading of the apostles continues to exist in the manuscript tradition today". We just don't know what they are and we are still trying to work it out, 2000 years after Christ, we still haven't figured out the definite text the apostles wrote. If you read your Bible, do you get that from what the scripture teaches concerning itself? Absolutely not, that doctrine is not from the scriptures, it is from the minds of nonbelieving infidels, atheists. This is quite clearly not the Reformed view; the Reformation-era divines believed they possessed in their day the autographs in the faithful apographs, extant in their day, and hence these could be the ultimate standard against the Papacy for all faith and practice. The Reformation-era divines were not seeking an infinite regress to an ever-elusive hypothetical autographa. Mr White is clearly not Reformed by any historical standard, he is clearly a modernist heretic.
Conclusion:
===========
Dr Riddle destroyed Mr White. Dr Riddle put forth the historical confessional reformed view of scripture based upon what scripture teaches about itself. Mr White's view is totally divorced from biblical presuppositions and instead based on man-made infidel reasoning often total pure conjecture and invention.
Further Research:
=================
For anyone who wants to better understand the Confessional View of Scripture, the following books are good starting points:
* G.H Milne "Has The Bible Been Kept Pure" ( www.amazon.com/Westminster-Confession-providential-preservation-Scripture/dp/1522039155 )
* William Whitaker "A Disputation On Holy Scripture" ( www.bookdepository.com/Disputation-on-Holy-Scripture-William-Whitaker/9780343925000 )
* Thomas Ford "Logos Autopistos" ( www.westminsterassembly.org/primary-source/logos-autopistos-or-scriptures-self-evidence/ )
* E.F Hills "Text & Time" ( www.amazon.com/Text-Time-Reformed-Testament-Criticism-ebook/dp/B07DB7ZBLC )
* To understand the origins of Mr White's school of modern critcism Dean Burgon "The Revision Revised" ( www.bookdepository.com/Revision-Revised-Dean-John-William-Burgon/9781888328011 )
* For more material by Dr Riddle check out his "Word Magazine" series on SermonAudio, particuarly the many episodes where he steps through and debunks James White, Daniel Wallace, etc ( www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=crbchurch&keyword=Word+Magazine&keyworddesc=Word+Magazine )
Great points, just read them all. But you forgot the snake handling and poison argument. lol
So why are there multiple endings?
Here are your multiple endings. End of Matthew "Amen," end of Luke, "Amen," end of Mark, "Amen," and end of John, "Amen". Got to admit, consistency lacks not.
Thank you for proving that James White is nothing but a deceiver and an incessant liar. There's no other way to put it. The man has dug his feet in the ground, facts be damned!
Id like to add how fantastic it is, that we have so much of the word of God, that we can debate about it.
We are absolutely blessed to have these opportunities... absolutely blessed.
Hopefully we dont lose sight of our role in the shared relationship with God - its certainly not to create thrones for our determined truths and most definitely a matter of how we apply his teachings... I think.
Disclaimer, an opinion based off personal experience. 😂
So Peter got martyred before John Mark could finish writing his account of the Gospel, and the poor Gospel writer had no one else to turn to? :( :( :(
I did not like the opening remarks of Dr. Riddle attacking Dr. White for being a “professional apologist” Conveniently leaving out that he is an elder In fact a teaching elder and a churchman
Him being an elder is irrelevant. He is a professional apologist, and a bad one at that. He has been a professional deceiver and liar for 30 years
@@kingjames5527 Your name sticks out.
16:01 - "Open columns were left" in Vaticanus in other places, but every one of those (contra Wallace) is clearly the result of an incidental factor in the production of the codex. The blank space after Mark 16:8 is not like that; it was left blank intentionally.
I would like to ask you about the end of the mark 16: 9-20. I believe that Mark's ending is additional. Not the original writing of Mark. But I believe and accept it as the inspired word of God. which answered my question. Verily who added part of the text of Mark 16: 9-20, what is his name.
James Assumptions White said In later centuries IT WAS FELT that Mark needed to look like Luke and Matthew??????? 😄🤥
Where’s the evidence James?
Jeff Riddle opening remarks 28:30
The vitriol going back and forth in the live chat and elsewhere is simply disgusting and should be benieth a Christian. If this is the example of Christendom that an unsaved world sees, no wonder there are so many "nones" in our day, these Christians are acting no better than the lost. Shame on you.
The worst people I've ever met where all self professed Christians. The kindest and helpful were atheist , agnostics, and Muslims.
@@ahmahtiyehudim7307
That's weird, I've never met a kind atheist in all my 40 years on earth.
@@lawrencestanley8989 , you should do more street ministry. I meet them all the time.
Discussing the "longer ending" of Mark, and to lesser extent, the Pericope Adulterae. (historical event with Witness from antiquity. The discussion is its placement, not its inspiration) Firstly, it is agreed that the traditional ending of Mark is from deep antiquity, because it is quoted by 2nd Century Church Fathers without controversy as being such.....but a slight manuscript debate comes out of the 4th Century. You have the traditional ending, a verse 8 ending, and 2 much later substitutional endings.....so, what is to be believed? Firstly, I think there is an issue with the modern attitude, "only the original autographs are inspired." What a boneheaded statement concerning texts with mutual dependency (Synoptic) and journalistic sources. What if the 1st run through wasn't intended to be the Final product? Who is to say that Mark or someone close to Mark did not come back and add a 1st Generation appropriate ending to what wasn't finished until then? These Gospel had their Primary Witness, but their compilation was a Witness of an entire Community of Believers based on their experiences....especially Luke who gave an "orderly account." These were community Gospels. If a scribe wrote a rough draft and an Apostle or a Witness said there was more to the story, and the traditional text is what came out of the 1st Century from the Apostolic circles, attested by Apostolic Fathers shortly after, I have no issue with that. God's Work has always been by Process and Interaction....
Wow. I had not heard of Riddle before. I don’t think White was prepared for this.
I disagree. James White was quite effective in supporting his position. If you check out the second debate, Dr. Jeff Riddle could not use consistent standards to defend Eph. 3:9 and the LE of Mark.
Oh, he was prepared. Most definitely he was. White is quite knowledgeable of the manuscript tradition.
I think he meant he wasn't expecting such a great response. The difference I think is that riddle is also reformed.
You must not have watched the same video I did.
Yeah this comment is def from a TR person lol
My question is , How does the longer ending hurt the message ?
Take the previous reply with a grain of salt. Those signs accompany the revelation of the gospel as a stamp of authenticity (see Exodus 4:29-31, John 10:29-31,37-38). Although in the Early church there were signs and wonders, these are seen with those taking on a missionary role seemingly for the same purpose of confirming that the gospel has God’s seal of authenticity. On the other hand, the miracles seem to be very selective and few. Understand that a true Christian is the one that believes (and perseveres in believing thanks to God’s upholding hand). Not all Christians have fancy or miraculous signs: 1 Corinthians 12:29 tells us we shouldn’t even expect fancy spiritual gifts to be widespread or prove the genuineness of a conversion.
Fact is: Spiritual giftings are diverse and are distributed unequally. The cluster of miracles accompanying the gospel proclamation during the early evangelical work of the Early Christian Church is wholly in line with the clustering of miracles seen in the Bible. Once more: Miracles were like the confirming seals of authenticity accompanying those prophets speaking God’s Words. Moses as case and point: He asked God’s name, but was also told to perform the sign of the stick/serpent/stick to show the Israelites it was really a message from God (Exodus 4:29-31 I mentioned earlier).
For completeness: The signs and wonders aren’t required right now because God already gave us the completed bible. The signs mentioned at the end of Mark are seen in Acts, where Paul gets shipwrecked and then around the fire on an island he is bitten by a venomous snake and merely shakes it off with no ill effect. Paul was giving the gospel message. (Galatians 1:12)… so beware that the gospel isn’t changed out for a false one: (Galatians 1:8) pay mind to that gospel once delivered and thence preserved in writing. … Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 3-4, Galatians 1-6.
It doesn't necessarily. But it's a doubt casting argument by text critics because they actually believe that just about every MSS from the 2nd century until today was corrupted on purpose.
He can't even Use Dr. White's name...
That's not an Orthodox Christian statement Dr. JW, "I want to know what the Apostles wrote."
What? Do you mean to say, as time goes by you would know what the Apostles wrote more than the earlier Christians?
Seriously Dr. JW?
Yes. He doesn't view the text of Scripture as settled. These modern views of inspiration and preservation...which don't line up with the Bible, people are just signing off on without thought, or considering the consequences.
Loaded debates help no one. Bring me on board.
2:17:00
17:48 - "There seems to be in Irenaeus a clear reference" -- well yes. As White himself confirms, "Definitely." "“Towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.’”
Debates can be a great tool but they don't determine truth--they only determine who the best debater was.
As soon as I hear a theological slant at the beginning of an opening statement I already know that the rest is going to be cherry picked.
Would you consider there being such a thing as a scholarly slant?
Dr. Riddle has done a great job defending the traditional reading. JW did a good job too, however I feel as though the evidence against JW's position is too much to argue against
I disagree, Most New testament scholars don't hold that position at all. The longer ending of mark is certainly a later edition that a scribe inserted into the text.
@@jonathandutra4831 False!!! Do your own research. Ireneaus quotes directly from Mark 16:19 in 200AD. More than 150 years before Sinaticus was written. This means that whoever wrote the Codex Sinaiticus in 350 AD, removed the longer ending of Mark. You're only spouting with the alexandrian scholars teach.
@@lonestarstate6570 -That does not mean they removed it. The quality of the MSS is a major factor, It means it was not included because it was not in his manuscripts that he was copying. Irenaeus does not quote the entire ending only a bit near the very end. Decisions about originality are never dated purely on the dating of our witness. Some manuscripts had it in their texts that Irenaeus used around 180CE or so. Not a good argument because most of our textual variants that we know about can be dated back to this period. The argument is based on a number of factors. Quality of Manuscripts and on internal grounds. The Grammer between 16:8 -16:9 doesn't work. The transition don't makes sense, it's writing style is different & it uses a number of words not found elsewhere in the gospel. I'm quoting words from a well known textual scholar.
@@jonathandutra4831 Your comment shows your ignorance of the subject matter. Codex Sinaiticus is the tipping point, it's the manuscript by which all others are judged. Sinaiticus is dubbed "the oldest and best NT manuscript". It's said to be from 350AD, yet it's never been chemically tested (paper or ink), and it also has no provenance. The problem Alexandrian scholars run into by believing Sinaiticus is "oldest and best", is concluding that every manuscript that comes after 350AD which includes Mark 16:9-20 must have added it into the text (meaning it's not of the Holy Spirit, and can't be trusted as Gods Words), this is exactly what you're doing! So what do we conclude then if older manuscripts from before 350AD have verses 9-20, to the point where even Ireneaus quotes from these verses, believing them to be Scripture? If we're to believe that you and Sinaiticus are correct, that means verses 9-20 were added sometime before Ireneaus birth, then accepted as Canonical, but then taken out and "fixed" by Sinaiticus??? No way! Not enough time. Origen of Alexandria is your key to understanding what's happening with all the missing verses from Sinaiticus. Yes all 16 missing verses, including the "long ending" of Mark and John 7:53-8:11 are missing exclusively from Codex Sinaiticus....Yet you claim "decisions about originality are never dated purely on the age of the manuscript"...yet you and Alexandrian scholars do exactly that with Sinaiticus without actually knowing it's age! Hilarious
@@lonestarstate6570 I did not bring up sinaiticus 1 time. You keep resonating with the text when I said that scholars don't consider the longer ending of mark original based on internal grounds. (Plus many other reasons) I see you been avoiding to address that and for good reason. Do you know how to read or translate Koine Greek ? Some of the most well respected textual critics to this day and in the past have known this for a very long time.
Who Won?
25:44 - What data, and what location, does White propose for the composition of the Gospel of Mark?