In WM 223 I review Sinclair Ferguson's views on the Ending of Mark in his book Let's Study Mark (Banner of Truth, 1999).
Other resources on Mark's Ending:
My article "The Ending of Mark as a Canonical Crisis."
My review of Nicholas P. Lunn's The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.
My name is Chad. I'm mostly a critical text kind of guy but I dont exclude the TR. Just listened to James Snapp's recent presentation with Boyce hosting. Snapp is pretty convincing. Definitely convincing enough to not double bracket the longer ending of Mark as critical texts guys have done. Some of the false or misleading statements that have been perpetuated by critical text guys on these verses almost seem done on purpose. Its weird like a decision was made to exclude it and they made a covenant in blood to stick to the script no matter what. The evidence on manuscripts and church Fathers that Snapp made was impressive and I have not heard any critical text guys refute them specifically and there were many lines of evidence to refute. I was impressed by Boyce for being open to Snapp. Boyce refuted nothing and almost seemed impressed himself with Snapp's presentation. If you have any recent links of critical text guys refuting the particulars of Snapps presentation please pass them on. I respect and appreciate the critical texts guys stuff usually but something seems unusually fishy and pointed about this one. I think they might know that they are wrong now but can't go back on it now or they are concerned that they might lose their credibility on everything else. Just my two cents. If you got some new link you came across post em'. Thanks.
Post a Comment