Basically, James was successful in showing that the original pages, before the cancel sheet, could not have included the full ending of Mark, in any type of normal writing. However, there are various other nuances.

There might be some here, with my post and whatever is underneath, however at the moment I am not seeing the underneath posts.

New Testament Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1140...al_comments=21

Here are some pics.

First the page from the British Library.

Codes Sinaiticus Project
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=5...

It takes a little while to come up to speed on this.

If you put in "Codex Sinaiticus: - Mark's Ending " to google the second url leads to many pics (Facebook direct chokes on it for no reason known except that it is a freely hosted domain where other sites can be no good).

Wilbur Pickering made some comments that are very edgy. James Snapp has an article on the topic.

First, though, it is good to simply understand what you have.

The "arabesque" flourishes are especially noticeable. "Stop here... the ending is over "

They are one factor in why Pickering did not accept the cancel-sheet as authentic antiquiity.
Then we get to the series from Nazaroo. Here are parts 5, 6 and 7.

Sinaiticus & Mark's Ending (Pt 5): James Snapp Jr.
http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/01/...t-5-james.html
http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/01/...t-6-james.html
http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/01/...t-7-james.html

At the moment I am not doing any special review, just leaving these resources.

Steven