There has been some new evidence lately in support of 16:8 as the original ending of GMark so time to resurrect what I think is the continuing best article on the subject:
Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)
This "new" evidence has generally been around for a while but existed in languages other than Greek. Concluders of 16:8 generally would have had little interest in pursuing these as evidence as the 16:8 conclusion is based on quality and the quality of this new evidence, due to lack of specific Textual Criticism context, lack of early age and non-Greek language, would be minor.
Concluders of 16:9-20(LE) though base their arguments on quantity. Foremost proponent of LE, James Sapp, oh, Snapp, is typical of concluders of LE, in that during his crusade for evidence in favor of LE, by being willing to look everywhere and do anything to find evidence (in favor) he did accidentally discover the weapons of mass destruction, a cure for Ebola and The Holy Grail, but had no interest in making public any new evidence in favor of 16:8.
For those who are still not aware, our own private Benjamin Smith has a rather excellent basic presentation of External evidence on the subject here:
The endings of the gospel of Mark
Recent evidence for 16:8 as original is:
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed (1932) pp.18-116Theodore the Interpreter (ca. 350 – 428) was bishop of Mopsuestia (as Theodore II) from 392 to 428 AD. He is also known as Theodore of Antioch, from the place of his birth and presbyterate. He is the best known representative of the middle School of Antioch of hermeneutics.
Mark 16:19Chapter VII.
It is with justice, therefore, that in accordance with the words of the Apostle our blessed Fathers first mentioned the principal benefit of the Economy of Christ in saying: And rose from the dead, and then added the sentence: And ascended into heaven. It was necessary that after having known that He rose from the dead we should also know where He is after His resurrection. As the Sacred Book, after saying that God made Adam, added how, from what, and also in which locality He placed him to lead his earthly life, so also in the case of Christ our Lord who was assumed from us and was according to our nature, because after (our blessed Fathers) said that He rose from the dead they rightly added that He ascended into heaven so that we should learn that He moved into an immortal nature and ascended into heaven, as it was necessary for Him to be high above all. All the evangelists narrated to us His resurrection from the dead and with it they ended their respective Gospels, because they knew that it was sufficient for us to learn that He rose from the dead, moved to an immortal and immutable life and gave us the hope of participating with Him in the future good things. The blessed Luke, however, who is also the writer of a Gospel, added that He ascended into heaven 199 so that we should know where He is after His resurrection. It is also known that he taught us this at the beginning of his teaching when he wrote the Acts of the Apostles,200 where he further added the rest of the facts, one after another, as it fitted the sequence of the narration.
It looks like Theo Mo was either unaware of the LE or did not think it original.So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.