Tobin wrote:bcspace wrote:One could probably start with the Wikipedia article on Mark 16 itself and have enough information to make a good case for Mark 16:9-20's inclusion. The article has a section entitled "Mark 16:9–20 in the manuscripts and patristic evidence".
The problem I have with Craig is he just leaps off into la-la-land based on the most unfounded assertions and generalizations without examining them in the slightest. Bear in mind he has no proof of his assertions. Also, I can't believe all Biblical scholars (whoever they are?) agree on any single thing including this. That seems to be a laughable assertion all by itself.
Just when we were going to be friends...oh well...“F” that...
I never said ALL...although I didn't use a qualifier. I do feel its safe to say that a vast majority of biblical scholars ( the outliers would be LDS biblical scholars) question these verses since they do not appear in our earliest manuscripts...they only appear in later copies of these manuscripts...which would appear then to make Mark 16:9-20 additions to the text.
* From the Wiki Page: The vast majority of contemporary New Testament textual critics (see also Textual criticism) have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel. This conclusion extends back as far as the middle of the nineteenth century. Harnack, for instance, was convinced that the original ending was lost.[40] Rendel Harris (1907) supplied the theory that Mark 16:8 had continued with the words "of the Jews."[41] By the middle of the 20th century, it had become the dominant belief that the Long Ending was not genuine. By this time, most translations were adding notes to indicate that neither the Long Ending nor the Short Ending were original. Examples include Mongomery's New Testament ("The closing verses of Mark's gospel are probably a later addition...," 1924); Goodspeed's (who includes both endings as "Ancient Appendices," 1935); Williams' New Testament ("Later mss add vv. 9-20," 1937); and the Revised Standard Version (1946), which placed the Long Ending in a footnote. Tradition intervened, and by the early 1970s the complaints in favor of the verses were strong enough to prompt a revision of the RSV (1971) which restored the verses to the text—albeit with a note about their dubiousness. The vast majority of modern scholars remain convinced that neither of the two endings is Marcan.
In Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament[42] Metzger states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription."
The 1984 printing of the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20." However, the Committee on Bible Translation has since changed this to read "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20."