Our next apostate for consideration is Ryan Anderson:
For me it was discovering that Mark 16:9-20 was a later addition. Obviously, this by itself is fairly easily explained [sic] away, but that was what initially woke me up.
I won’t say much in condemnation of our apostate this time, since he does concede that the issue of the Markan addendum is easy to explain. Nevertheless, the fact that it was this issue which first raised questions raises some serious misgivings.
On his end, it seems difficult to countenance that this was some sort of “discovery”. It’s related in the notes of many translations that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of the original text.
But then again, I’m finding again and again that far too many people don’t seem to notice those notes. I can’t imagine how sheltered they must be for this to happen, but with leading teachers like Joyce Meyer oblivious to the issue, it’s enough to make Chuck Norris cringe.
Just yesterday, I discovered while reading for an E-Block article that the early 20th century devotionalist Arthur Pink offered the worst example yet, not only quoting Mark 16:16, but calling it the most important words Jesus ever said. GAG.
A pastoral friend of mine was asked why more isn’t said about this sort of thing, and the answer isn’t a pleasant one. Apparently most pastors feel that revealing that eg, Mark 16:9-20 is not original will cause their flock to have a crisis of confidence in the Bible. Well, folks, that’s why you have to then explain why it shouldn’t be one. As it is, the example of Ryan shows that the crisis is going to occur if you do not tell the people the whole truth. And by that time, it may be too late for explanations.
Some may wonder why, in my E-Block articles, I always point out when some writer uses Mark 16:9-20 in an unqualified way. This is why.