Mark 16:9 - 20

In my copy of the Bible at the end of the book of Mark is a disclaimer saying "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9 - 20." The passage itself is really weird and out of place it tells of people drinking poison and quickly and awkwardly goes over the Resurrection and ascension. Should we just completely disregard that part of the gospel?

Attached: empty_tomb23456.jpg (1001x538, 73.19K)

Treat it as tradition like the Pericope Adulterae

...

God willed this passage to be in the text regardless if it was added later than the original text or not. It's still scripture.

which text

Are you suggesting that inscripturation took place at more than just the point when Mark's original author wrote the text?

The scholars are being stupid. The church fathers show awareness of those verses long before the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written but they overvalue the manuscripts they can lay their hands on as being more authentic.

this doesn't mean it's bad or anything, just not in the autographa.

Sauce?

...

...

...

Interesting fact is that if you add up all the verses in Mark you get 678 but if you take out the last 12 like the new versions tell you then you get 666 in Mark.

Justin Martyr seems to quote it in his apologies, his student Tatian definitely quotes it in the Diatesseron and Irenaeus wrote about it too.

wtf I'm a hoshbrown ecclesiasticaltextist now

THE VERSE MARKERS WERE ADDED IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND HAVE ZERO THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

If you asked John what he meant by 666 would he say "oh yes, in the future, someone will add verse numbers to the Mark's Gospel and if someone takes out one of the endings floating around, there will be exactly 666 verses. I know I said it was a the sum of a name but you finally figured it out!"

...

Does Satan care about what is theologically significant, or does he just want to get his foot in wherever he can?

I have a faint memory about reading something about it and even the early church didn't attribute it to Mark but its author was still inspired therefore scripture.
There's also the case of the adulterer woman in John but imo its just modernist imagination since church fathers say that story was already famous since the beginning of the church, not my fault that some copist dudes decided to omit it in some Greek manuscripts possibly because muh feelings because muh wife cucked me as well and I don't forgive her.

+1

Attached: monster_coincidence.jpg (797x705, 108K)

I am close to hatred towards americans