My Answer to Dr. James White's voiding the last eleven verses of the Gospel of Mark.

+++

+++

I stated in a recent video that James White's only true theology is a Man Made Tradition created upon his own perceptions of his "science" of textual criticism. The problem with that is that there is no uniform Tradition from this science - it is a science where the word of demonic-unbelievers is given equal weight against not only the history and tradition of the Church but against believers who practice the same science. White vs Bart Ehrman - and all the Jesus Project textual critics prove this premise in spades.  So White's TRADITION is his own personal textual criticism prejudiced by the Man Made Tradition of extreme Calvinism. His own words in his opening and first rebuttal proves in spades that my premise was correct. 

 

Besides the very early witness of the Apostolic Veracity of the Mark ending, as witnessed by Saint Irenaeus in his document of core Orthodoxy, some falsely call proto-orthodoxy, as if the Apostles and Early Church Fathers did not create Orthodoxy, he talks about being true to the Apostles when any deviation from the Gospels that was not apostolic would have been attacked very early and what we have is a sucking silence instead as to error, and use of the text by early fathers. In this we see that White does not honor the early fathers as he often claims. He said here, "I'm only interested in what the Apostles knew" as if he by his modern "science" of textual criticism can not only check, but checkmate the early church fathers and those who are the Apostles successors.  

 

White literally poo poos (yes poo poos) any Orthodox Christian who says that the Early Church did not have the Bible as understood in the Sola Scriptura heretical way. He has said on multiple occasions that such people are "casting doubt on the validity of scripture." Here we see him doing the exact same thing. And why? There are only two early texts of the Gospel of Mark that are absent the extension. A very few have a different ending and a few have both endings.  The proper response is: SO WHAT?

Every verse of the last eleven verses of the Gospel of Mark is backed up with Canonical proof, even by Sola Scriptura standards.  

 

Verse 9:
Luk 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, &
Jn 20: 11-18

Verse 12:
Lk 24:13-35

Verse 14
Lk 24:36-49 Jn 20:19-23

Verse 15
Mt 28:16-29

Verse 16
Jn 12:48

Verse 17
Acts 2:4, 16:18

Verse 18
Acts 28:5, 8.

Verse 19
Lk 24:50-53

Verse 20
Heb 2:4

I know White is, but I assume his debate partner also is a Sola Scriptura heretic, and what I find totally amazing is that they could spend hours . . . hours mind you, debating what has been settled for two millennia.

Now, for the record, I think that the last verses are not "original" but are a very early addition, but my OPINION aside (meaning nothing) they are Ecclesiastically Canonical.  Why is that important?

It is ONLY by the Tradition of the Church that we even have the name Mark, a disciple of Saint Peter attached to this writing, and it is ONLY by the Tradition of the Church that we have the acceptance of the last eleven verses as "Ecclesiastically Canonical." What Dr White thinks and whatever his ever shifting science of Textual Criticism says about it is actually irrelevant.