There are many issues relating to the Mark ending. In another thread we discussed, and severely criticized, the Bill Cooper and David Sorenson theories of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus having the same scribe at the ending.

This thread will be used for a variety pack of evidences and theories relating to the Mark ending, involving the two mss.

The following is from the gentleman who has written about hieroglyphics in Sinaiticus. The claim should be checked.

[textualcriticism] Dimples
George Young - May 19, 2006

For example, have you noticed that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus end ***exactly*** the same way? Have you noticed that many lines in both codices end exactly the same, some of which have a dimple mark?
This next would have to be checked and puzzled out. George/Mark is not that easy to contact.

[TC-Alternate-list] Re: The End of Mark in Vaticanus (Part 3)
Mark Thunderson - Dec, 2007

when I look at Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and others - it sure looks to me like an ***interpolation***. To be sure, look carefully at 15:47 in Sinaiticus, at the bottom of the column, at the bottom of the page, there you will see a colon at 15:47. Now, I thank God for my new understanding of colons, because in this case, it signifies very clearly that the scribes of Sinaiticus were adamant that Mark Chapter 15 ends here at 15:47. And, from a historical perspective, that the women bought the spices the same day Jesus was crucified.

Nonetheless, to speak to your objection, I see the interpolation (15:47-16:1) as the beginning of a harmonizing tendency that culminates in the "many tails" that grow out of Mark's TOGAR. Here at this particular interpolation one can disect the text into various parts to locate from whence each "part" came. I am not going to demonstrate this process here because I am absolutely confident that you are more than able to do that if you choose. However, let me say this: if it was NOT an interpolation and truly an instance of parablepsis, then one would expect that the parablesis would convey information that is ***unique to Mark*** - not information that one can pieced-together from Matthew and Luke. But that is precisely what we have here! Hence, I, like the scribes of Sinaiticus, end with the colon at the bottom of the page in SInaiticus.


(Regarding TH vs. no TH in 16:2) "If you look closely at Vaticanus you will see that there are two (2) blank spaces in the same sentence, i.e., this truly was an error of sight; but after so much massaging of the text, why go back and fix two letters?"

I am pointing out here that there are two "blank spaces" in Vaticanus, big enough for the TH. Could this be mere conincidence? If so, why does it happen in similar scenarios elsewhere in B? I suggest its because the scribe of Vaticanus has missed a letter, preposition, word, particle, etc.