I understand that.I get what you are saying, but there are a number of issues here.
I think people who accept the received text would agree.The first, and most important to me, is what actually happened.
Yes I understand, but that's just a long way of saying that you subscribe to the critical text. It's not really a helpful observation in tipping the needle One Direction or the other.I believe the ending of Mark was made up, composed from bits of the other gospels, and so gives us no help in trying to decide what actually happened on that first Easter.
That's up for discussion. It's the opinion of Edgar J Goodspeed of the University of Chicago that the original gospel was what he calls the oral gospel of Matthew. And that Mark was a distillation of this oral gospel that Christian's memorized in a fixed not fluid formulation before any gospel was committed to writing. I would not dismiss this possibility out of hand as Goodspeed was one of the preeminent Bible scholars of the 20th century heading the theology department at the University of Chicago.As the earliest gospel, the rest of Mark is perhaps the best resource we have in that regard; the ending is useless.
This is a whole other extremely involved discussion. But it certainly is not going to turn on whether or not the received or the critical text should be accepted.What guarantee do we have that the canon is right?
You were casting the issue as right or wrong based purely on the placement I've text that one side of this discussion would accepts as inspired. I would suggest to you that that is an artifact of the way critical scholarship has developed. It's not a matter of "getting it right the first time."If it was all under God's control, why did he not have the ending of Mark written when the rest of the gospel was written? Why did he not get it right, right from the start?
From what perspective? If you were Christian you accept Christian doctrine and there are still a lot of us who except the doctrine of inerrancy. It doesn't mean we don't engage the critical text, it means that we have to ultimately decide what we believe.Noting your later comment, you seem to just take authenticity of the Bible as an article of faith.
Obviously Christians are aware of this issue, which is why they would be foolish not to forthrightly and honestly engage this discussion.It says it in the Bible so it must be true. That is fine for Christians, but why would anyone else think Christianity is true?
Except for the fact of the resurrection.Any argument based on scripture is necessarily circular - the Bible is true because the Bible is true. And having been posting on CARM for many years, the only arguments I have seen that do not rely on the Bible are based on personal feelings, which again fail to convince unbelievers.