36 Matthew D. McDill Robert Bratcher and Eugene Nida argue against Lagrange and Light- foot, who say that even though there are doubts about its authenticity, the LE is canonical because it is ancient, was regarded as apostolic, and was accepted by the universal church. Bratcher and Nida claim that “the principle enunciated by Lagrange and Lightfoot, strictly applied, would mean that the text of the New Testament, as found in the Textus Receptus, is finally and forever the Canon, including all words, phrases, verses and larger sections which the critical study of the text in the last two centu- ries has shown not to have been part of the original text”46. Bratcher and Nida place a great deal of certainty upon the findings of textual criticism and seem to dismiss the widespread acceptance of the LE throughout history. It is true that textual analysis does show that some variants are not original, but often the evidence is not conclusive. Is it not possible to argue for the canonicity of the LE without claiming that the Textus Receptus is “finally and forever the Canon?” Although many scholars have not forthrightly objected to the LE’s canonicity, many are doing so in practice. Without saying so, it appears that many scholars are concluding that if the LE was not in the original MS or if it was not written by Mark, then the LE does not belong in the canon. As was pointed out earlier, for example, there are many works that do not deal with the LE exegetically or theologically47. How many preachers continually avoid preaching Mark 16:9-20 due to the textual questions surrounding it? Some scholars, however, conclude that the LE is not Markan but still believe it is canonical. Cox claims that “most scholars from the nineteenth century to the present day rejected the authenticity of the longer ending, whereas, they continued to view these verses as canonical”48. Many scholars also believe that the apostolic and early church fathers regarded the LE as canonical. B. Harvie Branscomb noted that citations from Irenaeus (180) and Tatian “show that the ending had been added long enough before this date for these writers to accept the passage without question”49. Cox writes, “The Church eventually included the longer ending of Mark in its Canon and read these verses in public services, based on this periscope’s antiquity, widespread manuscript support, and Patristic attestation”50. R.G. Bratcher and E.A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark (Leiden 46 1961) 521. See footnote 6. 47 Cox, History and Critique, 92. Schaffer also explains that “some of these opponents, 48 however, while denying the composition of the section by Mark, regard the contents as a part of the apostolic tradition”. Schaff, Apostolic Christianity. B. Harvie Branscomb, The Gospel of Mark (London 1937) 313. 49 Cox, History and Critique, 91. 50