If you drink any deadly thing.....

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by MarcBee

The verses were simply made up by scribes or someone and added because of the cliffhanger ending of Mark 16:8.

Kind of like how you just made up the scholarly judgement there.

But for those who might be easily confused by this tripe, here -

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html#dissent

But I am certain that our resident agnostic/atheists have scholarly credentials that clearly outclass Mr Scrivener's, Mr Burgon's, and many others.

Of course.

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Kind of like how you just made up the scholarly judgement there.

But for those who might be easily confused by this tripe, here -

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html#dissent

But I am certain that our resident agnostic/atheists have scholarly credentials that clearly outclass Mr Scrivener's, Mr Burgon's, and many others.

Of course.

Funny--your sarcasm and meaness exceeds mine!

Obviously I don't really know WHY or when scribes or whomever did add Mark 16:9-20 did so, and I am obviously going to take a more cynical viewpoint than the faithful "tripe"-haters such as you and the esteemed scholar Scrivener. Interesting, though, that in spite of all that Greek you linked to, (which I don't pretend to follow) every Bible I have containing Mark 16:9-20 does honestly notate in margin something such as "Vss 9-20 do not appear in earliest manuscripts."

The article you linked is mostly proving that in spite of not being written by "Mark" the early church fathers still regarded the verses as "canonical." No great surprise there. Per Scrivener's concluding sentence,

<<So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church.>>

Ah... the powerful vouching by others! IOW, some early fathers, although knowing the verses were not authored by Mark, they were still "content to regard it as canon."

Bruce Metzger implies similarly, article directly above the linked Scrivener, thus,
<<There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.>>.

So there ya go, "Ought to be accepted as canon" although known to be not authored by Mark.

Nice faith. Er, uh, I mean nice evidence, there. Canonicity is so.....so, divinely-inspired!