I know that they did but then that wasn’t my question. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.
I’ll rephrase, Should they be accepted as part of the original writing of Mark?
It is difficult to understand why Critical text supports are so enamored with the removal of Mark 16:9-20 from the Word of God. As seen above, the external evidence from the Greek witness is strongly in favor of their retention. The witness of other ancient versions strongly sides with this passage. Even the internal evidence, so much relied upon to support failed Critical arguments from the external, turns out to be very unconvincing. Yet, Critical text supporters continue to count the exclusion of Mark 16:9-20 as the "scholarly" position to take - any other makes you an uneducated bumpkin or a purposeful obscurant. In their attitudes and methodology, many of these Critics (and not just on this single issue) are very much like the evolutionists. Evolutionists will claim that their theory is supported by "mountains of scientific evidence," yet they cannot produce a single piece of this evidence which will stand up to the test of reasoned and scientific inquiry. Further, practically the entire abiogenetic foundation of evolutionary theory of origins rests upon arguments which can be debunked by appeal to knowledge gained from undergraduate science courses. Likewise, Critical text supporters will cite "the scholars" and "mountains of evidence" to support their positions, but will inevitably fall back onto some version of the less-than-cogent "oldest is best" argument, and will usually completely disregard other evidences (such as patristic quotations, etc.) which are destructive to their reconstructions.
Regardless, the Christian who desires the entire council of God need not fear that Mark 16:9-20 does not belong there. When all the Critical text supporters can offer are circular reasoning and partial evidences spun to their satisfaction, there is really no reason for the practical Christian to give much credence to their arguments.
From here...
But aside from the so-called scholarly evidence, this debate (and others) takes us to the word of God itself...
God tells us that he magnifies his word above even his name...God tells us that his words are a lamp onto our feet and a light onto our paths...God tells us that he will preserves his words forever...
I suppose one can chose to believe that we have a book that contains some of God words...That may be a good argument to use if one wanted to come up with a system where a supposed Holy Tradition was put in place by the claim of Apostolic successors of the very Apostles themselves...Removing any authority from the scriptures and transferring it to that group that makes the claims...
I on the other hand, can do nothing but believe God...He did preserve His words...I have those words that God preserved...If I didn't have those words, not only is God a liar, but I don't confidently have any of His words...
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
There is no doubt in my mind that the entirety of Mark 16 belongs in the scriptures...