Development Theories of the Gospels Are All Bunk 3: The Misuse of Mark and the Resurrection

Development theories about the resurrection stories usually start with the observation that, if the longer ending of Mark is non-canonical, Mark "doesn't have" any appearance stories. This assumes, further, that Mark originally ended after verse 8 (which I'd say is probably false). But it also treats the alleged absence of appearance stories as if Mark was *denying* appearances. Not only is this the worst kind of argument from silence, it also runs contrary to other indications right in the undeniably canonical text of Mark itself.