At the Parchment & Pen blog, Michael C. Patton recently posted about textual criticism:
Here is an extract:
"The two most significant variants are John 8 (which contains the story of the woman caught in adultery) and the longer ending of Mark 16 (where snake handling and drinking poison seem to be encouraged). Both of these passages are very late additions and, in the opinion of most scholars, should not be in the Bible."
Recently a friend mentioned to me that I might appear to be a bit zealous about making sure commentators get their facts right about Mark 16:9-20. Well there's a reason for that: guys like Michael J. Patton.
I clearly informed the "Parchment and Pen" guys (which include Daniel Wallace, and Richard "Blog Tyrant" Sugg) about the evidence for Mark 16:9-20, including Irenaeus' quotation. I see that Wieland has commented at the Parchment & Pen blog, attempting to correct Patton's erroneous statements.
Good luck with that, Wieland. I tried months ago, and when I emphasized my points to try to Wake These People Up Out Of Their Hubris-Saturated Errors, I was banned.
Let the Theology Program students beware: if you think Michael C Patton knows what he is talking about, you are being scammed.
I can tolerate a lot of negligence. But Mr. Patton seems determined to be negligent, and frankly, it makes me sick.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.