WM 307: O'Donnell Article Review: The Resurrection & Mark's Ending

Read O'Donnell's article here: www.crossway.org/articles/why...

[@rosslewchuk9286]

There seems to be an epidemic of referring to א and B as "many early manuscripts."

[@Dwayne_Green]

Great analysis. I saw this article about a week ago and was disappointed with it's effort to explain away the ending. I guess if you've sold yourself over to the idea that Mark 16:9-20 is not original, you have to explain it somehow. Funny enough, the stuff in the article used to explain the ending away, are just as valid when you include the proper ending!

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Some dismiss it because of modern Pentecostal snake handlers.

[@mrsamurangx3030]

Another issue Dr. Riddle is that the going theory today is that Mark was the first Gospel written and that all the other Gospels take their information from Mark. This means that potentially all subsequent Gospels added the resurrection story.

[@wordmagazine]

Good point. Yes, I don't hold to Markan priority but for those who do the idea that Mark did not originally include resurrection appearances certainly muddies the waters.

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

I did my M.Div. at Asbury Theological Seminary, 1995. One of my professors said Matthew was written first.

[@molodoychilovek1949]

So is this reason to leave a local church if the minister doesn’t believe the last chapter of Mark is genuine. Where do we as pew sitters set up our own boundaries?

[@ThomasCranmer1959]

Push back. I did.