It's been well established by now that the original Greek is clearly for 16:8 as original. The related Apologist son of Mantra is "99.9 % verses Sinaiticus/Vaticanus. The Latin witness in Apologist discussion here tends to get short (ending) changed. How bout a summary of the Latin witness.
Again, Jerome gives the early Textual Criticism comment:
Jerome witness to 16:8 as original (ending).
Jerome witness to VLE (Very Long Ending) as original (ending).The solution of this question is two-fold; for either we do not accept the testimony of Mark, [1]that is carried in few gospels, [2]almost all the books of Greece not having this passage at the end, especially and since it seems to speak various and contrary things to the other evangelists; or this must be replied, that both speak truly: Matthew, when the Lord rose again on the evening of the Sabbath, Mark however, when Mary Magdalen saw him, that is, on the morning of the first day of the week.
JW:In Against the Pelagians 2.15 he writes:
...[Latin]
[3]In certain manuscripts, and especially in the Greek codices, next to Mark, at the end of his gospel, it is written: Afterward, when the eleven were reclining, he appeared to them, and he reproached their incredulity and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen. And they made excuses, saying: This age of iniquity and incredulity is {under Satan}, who through unclean spirits does not allow the true power of God to be apprehended. For this reason, reveal your righteousness now.
The evidence from the above (per Jerome) is as follows:
- [1] 16:8 is original in most Gospels of Jerome's time that he was aware of, presumably Greek and Latin.
[2] The LE (Long Ending) is rarer in Greek than Latin.
[3] The VLE was more common in the Greek than the LE.
Apologists can be useful to Bible scholarship due to their motivation to scour the Earth and Heaven (and Hell) for evidence that supports their conclusion. Meet one James Snapp:
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 © 2007 James Edward Snapp, J
In general than, we have extant Latin Manuscripts which support Jeromes' text critical observation in support of 16:8 and the oddities here are far greater than 99.9% to .1%. Specifically we appear to have caught against Christianity in flagrante derilictio of fiduciary responsibility to properly transmit as the evidence indicates that the critical Latin text of Codex Vercellensis was originally for and was changed to against.Chapter Five: Versional Evidence
...
The Old Latin evidence should be approached cautiously because of the fragmentary nature of some Old Latin MSS and the diversity among Old Latin texts. Most extant Old Latin MSS of Mark 16 support the LE. However, the mutilation of some Old Latin MSS has rendered it difficult or impossible to discern their original contents at the end of Mark. 5-b
One Old Latin MS in the GNT’s textual apparatus for Mark 16:9-20 is listed separately as a text which contains the SE and does not contain the LE. That MS is Codex Bobiensis, itk.5-c Codex Bobiensis (sometimes spelled “Bobbiensis”) will be considered shortly. Another Old Latin MS, Codex Vercellensis, deserves a closer look. It is not listed in the dGNT either for or again the inclusion of 16:9-20. Although Codex Vercellensis (itst Eusebius of Vercelli, who died in 371.Eusebia) contains the LE, the passage is on a replacement-page, and the text on the replacement-page is derived from the Vulgate, not the exemplar that was used for the rest of Mark. C.H. Turner calculated (in a brief essay published in 1928) that originally it did not have sufficient room to contain the LE.5-d
So in summary judgement, the change from Greek to Latin also shows change of For to Against. Snapp! Oh no they di-int. Oh yes they di-id.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki