from Erasmus to Burgon - how the textual apostasy developed - ending of Mark

Steven Avery

This was summarized earlier, without giving detail.


Early History in Reformation era of Ending considerations

[TC-Alternate-list] EoM - Cajetan and Catharinus
Steven Avery - Nov 2, 2008
New Testament Textual Criticism - Steven Avery - June, 2015{tn:R4}

Along with the Jan Krans blog with the comments:

The Turning Point for Mark 16:9-20

Two of the only online posts on the earlier discussions about the section's authenticity.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Cajetan and Catharinus

[TC-Alternate-list] EoM - Cajetan and Catharinus
Steven Avery - Nov 2, 2008

Thomas Cajetan, Thomas (1469-1534)

Ambrosius Catharinus (1483-1553)

Hi Folks,

Likely the earliest extant back-and-forth on the ending of Mark was around the time of
Erasmus, between two Dominicans, Cajetan (doubtful) and Catharinus (fully Scripture).

A good summary is in:

Biblical Scholarship and the Church
Allan K. Jenkins & Patrick Preston

Mark 16:9
Cajetan chose Mark 16:9 to draw attention to the fact that there are doubts about the chapter in which it occurs. As usual he begins with Jerome, who, in the letter to Hedebia on 12 questions, when solving the third question,45 quoted the words, ‘Jesus arising early on the Sabbath appeared to Mary Magdalene &c’, and added:

We do not accept the testimony of Mark, which is reported in few gospels: for almost all the Greek books do not have the end of this chapter, particularly since it seems to relate things different from and contrary to the other Evangelists.

Again, Cajetan says that in a second dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome remarked that in certain codices of Mark’s Gospel, particularly the Greek codices, there occurs at the end,46 ‘And they satisfied him when they said, “This world is the substance of iniquity and incredulity which does not allow the true virtue of God to be apprehended by unclean spirits. Consequently, now reveal your justice.’”

Since the codices on which this chapter is based give different readings, and because there are some things in it that are contained in no other Evangelist, there is a problem. It cannot be solved by asserting that the whole of this last chapter has been added, because it would follow that the Gospel of Mark finishes in the burial of Christ, and says absolutely nothing about the Resurrection. This, Cajetan thinks, would be foolish and faithless assertion, for the whole faith of the Gospel depends on the Resurrection. Cajetan believed that Mark 16 was considered suspect by many Greeks on account of the admixture, by some-one unknown, of those words that Jerome quotes in the dialogue, and also on account of the promise that is attached (Mark 16:17): ‘These signs shall follow those that believe: they shall cast out demons in my name’. The upshot of these suspicions is that these parts are not, like everything else that Mark wrote, which is undoubted, of solid authority for establishing the faith.

Catharinus wastes little time in disposing of Cajetan’s arguments about the last chapter of St Mark’s Gospel. He first scores a point against Cajetan, by taking him to be saying that because some men have thought that the last chapter of Mark has been added, it is not of solid authority for establishing the faith like the other parts of Mark. In this crude form, Cajetan’s argument is vulnerable. Does scripture lose authority because Tom, Dick and Harry have had their doubts? This is scarcely what Cajetan meant. Catharinus’s real point is a reapplication of one of his general principles for deciding canonicity: the last chapter of Mark is part of the liturgy for Good Friday and Easter Sunday. And that, in his view, renders it invulnerable.

45 The reference is to Letter 120 to Hedebia. Question (3) reads, ‘How are the discrepancies in the evangelical narratives to be accounted for? How can Matt, xxviii. 1 be reconciled with Mark xvi. I, 2?’ Migne, PL 22, p. 987:

Hujus quaestionis duplex solutio est; aut enim non recipimus Marci testimonium (Marc, ult., 9 and 10) quod in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graeciae libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus, praesertim cum diversa atque contraria Evangelistis caeteris narrare videatur.

46 [Cajetan’s text actually reads:
Afterwards, when the eleven had reclined at table, Jesus appeared to them and reproached them with their incredulity and the hardness of their hearts, because they did not believe those who had seen him after his resurrection. And they satisfied him when they said. 'This world is the substance of iniquity and incredulity which does not allow the true virtue of God to be apprehended by unclean spirits. Consequently, now reveal your justice.

This is a gloss on 16:14, now known from the fifth century Codex W - the ‘Freer Gospels’, but not found in the Vulgate (or KJV); see Parker (1997), p. 128 who cites the relevant passage from Jerome.

It is not the purpose here to adjudicate between Cajetan and Catharinus on any issue on which they disagreed. It is not in any case clear on what general principles this could be done. In the particular case of Mark 16:9-20 it might however be done on the basis that Jerome could not find these verses in any Greek manuscripts. Virtually all scholars now agree that Mark 16:9-20 is an addition, perhaps in the belief that the original ending was lost. It is not found in the best manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus in Rome. Cajetan was also right to note the internal evidence of disparity of content with other gospels. Plainly, there are some weak arguments on both sides: Catharinus in particular seems to suppose that a good case is strengthened by the addition of such arguments. Central to the whole debate however is the importance to be attached to the views of Jerome. Catharinus supposes that for Cajetan Jerome is infallible. Since no human being except the pope has this status, a substantial part of Cajetan’s argument can be rejected. But the case is otherwise if Jerome’s views are not important because they are Jerome’s, but because Jerome is reporting what the attitude of the early church was. In that case, such precious evidence should not be ignored.


Is this section available in translation ?
From a historical perspective this is significant.

Putting aside the authors taking the doofus modern textcrit position, the information in the book is quite interesting. The two also tussled on the Pericope Adultera, Johannine Comma "strain out a gnat" and lots of other stuff (including authorship and canonicity).

Cajetan was a bit of a 'modernist', or liberal, yet was never censured by the RCC, nor were his books put on the Index of Forbidden Books. Some of his views on Bible books are similar to the canonicity doubts of Martin Luther.

Cajetan held Jerome in very high esteem, so likely it was mostly the Jerome comment on MSS evidence that was most responsible for his raising the ending of Mark question. How he got around its actual inclusion in the Vulgate, and other references to the ending from Jerome I dunno, putting aside all the other evidences.

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

New Testament Textual Criticism - Steven Avery - June, 2015{tn%3AR4}

> Steven Estes
> I take it that before Vaticanus and Siniaticus were discovered there was really no opposition to Mk.16:9-20?

Generally true, although before Sinaiticus you had some cautious opposition, such as Granville Penn. Tischendorf before Sinaiticus (hmmm...) in 1840 per Letis. And see below, such as Cajetan.

Overall, it misses the vibrancy of discussion, which often covers the points made today and on a higher level of analysis.


The must read text about the issue historically is the section from Richard Simon, covering up to about 1700:

A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament (1689)
Richard Simon
Andrew Hunwick translation (2013) (adds some Hunwick notes)

Euthymius Zigabenus (early 12th c.)
Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534)
Sixtus Senensis (1520-1569)
Juan Maldonado (1533-1583)
Theodore Beza (1519-1605)
Caesar Baronius (1538-1607)
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) (others unnamed with a Grotius position)
Richard Simon (1638-1712)

The apologetic aspects are definitely in the mix, almost center stage. Erasmus should be added for that period, also Catherinus, perhaps Johann Gerhard. And finding and then reading, or skimming, the articles in Latin would lead to more.

From the ECW some issues covered in Richard Simon:

Irenaeus, versional evidences, Jerome to Hedibia and to the Pelagians, and the Manichean possible contribution, Julian the apostate use in contra-apologetics and Greek responses.

And there are versional and ms. elements as well.

Eusebius before Jerome, the source of Jerome is missed. The large number of ECW references is not mentioned, Irenaeus is mentioned twice but no other Ante-Nicene ref.


1700s before Griesbach

John Mill (1645-1707)
Johann Bengel (1687-1752)
Johann Wettstein (1693-1754)
Johann Adam Osiander (1701-1756)\

Andreas Birch (Vaticanus collation) (1758-1829) .. overlaps Griesbach

The period from Griesbach to Hort is another including Burgon. James Morison (1816-1893) and Jean Pierre Martin (1840-1890) should not be missed, although after Hort.


Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000)
James A. Kelhoffer

“Hoe ‘Want ze waren bang’ het slot van Markus werd” - Dec, 2013
(“How ‘For they were afraid’ became Mark’s ending”),
Bart Kamphuis

p. 173-177

The Turning Point for Mark 16:9-20 - Dec, 2013
Jan Krans


Steven Avery

Jan Krans on the contra history - and Steven Avery fills various gaps in the history

The Turning Point for Mark 16:9-20

The Turning Point for Mark 16:9-20

This year’s December edition of Schrift, which has just been released, is entirely devoted to the Gospel of Mark. The one article they offer as a free download, entitled “Hoe ‘Want ze waren bang’ het slot van Markus werd” (“How ‘For they were afraid’ became Mark’s ending”), is about the history of textcritical scholarship on Mark’s ending.

When I agreed to write about Mark’s ending, the first thing I wanted to know, if only for myself, was when scholars started to doubt the authenticity of the last twelve verses. In Kelhoffer’s Miracle and Mission (2000) I found an extensive overview of the history of scholarship on Mark’s ‘Longer Ending’. According to Kelhoffer, critical reflection on the Longer Ending in the age of the printed book started with Birch’s publication of Vaticanus readings at the end of the 18th century. Out of curiosity, however, I moved back into history, from Birch to Wettstein (1751) … Bengel (1734) … Mill (1707) … Simon (1689) … Erasmus (1516)… All these scholars appear to already discuss the problem of Mark’s ending!

Through the ages, New Testament textual critics became increasingly aware of the problem. They encountered several remarks by Church Fathers, as well as all kinds of ‘paratextual’ information in the many New Testament manuscripts they studied. However, none of these manuscripts, no matter how old they seemed to be (such as A, C and D, all dated to the 5th century today), actually had Mark ending at 16:8. Therefore, before the end of the 18th century, no scholar, to my knowledge, ventured to hold Mark’s description of the risen Christ’s appearances to be secondary.

Then came, as mentioned, Andreas Birch, the Danish theologian-philologian, who, from 1781 to 1783, collated dozens of Greek New Testament manuscripts in continental European libraries, mainly those in Italy. Tregelles says about Birch that he “probably did more than any other scholar in the collation of MSS. of the Greek Testament” (Account of the Printed Text, 1854, p. 88). One of the manuscripts Birch examined in the Vatican library was already famous for its presumed age (some held it to belong to the 4th century; this dating is commonly accepted today). Some of its peculiar readings had already been circulating among scholars from Erasmus onwards; Wettstein can refer frequently to the manuscript he labelled ‘B’ because of its age. The most remarkable variant of ‘Codex Vaticanus’, however, had remained hidden from the scholarly community. Birch must have had his finest hour when discovering that in this manuscript, today generally considered to be our best one, Mark ends with ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ—“for they were afraid” (16:8).

Well then, the article is about this story, the accumulation of evidence from Erasmus to Birch, additional evidence after Birch, and the paradigm shift in textcritical theory around 1800 that makes the evidence of a manuscript like Vaticanus so weighty.

A final note. When I handed in the final draft of my article last summer, there was one thing I unfortunately had not been able to check: Birch’s presentation of the Vaticanus evidence in his 1788 Quatuor Evangelia Graece. No Dutch library had this book, and, more importantly, it was not yet available digitally on the internet. did offer the 1801 revision under the title Variae Lectiones ad Textum IV Evangeliorum. Here I did find Birch discussing the absence of Mark 16:9-20 in Vaticanus as the most telling example of the quality of this manuscript. But I wanted to hear him say such a thing in the 1788 edition, looking at the actual pages that can be seen as the turning point in the history of scholarship on Mark’s ending. I spoke about this with my fellow PhD candidate Christian Holmgaerd, who is Danish. A few weeks ago, he came with a big surprise: at his request the Royal Library in Kopenhagen digitized Birch’s 1788 Quatuor Evangelia Graece, in beautiful sharp images, and put it online. This is the title page:


On p. xxi Birch shares his exciting find with the world:


“Now although I believe the things I have put forward above make clear how much value should be assigned to Codex Vaticanus; still, let me provide, out of many observations, one example through which this becomes very clear.

The final pericope of the Gospel of Mark, from 16:9 down to the end of the chapter, is entirely absent in our manuscript, so that below the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ the subscription κατὰ μάρκον is placed. …”

Thanks to Christian and Det Kongelige Bibliotek!
Steven Avery said...
Thomas Cajetan (1469-1534), discussed by Richard Simon, could be included in your survey of traditional Mark ending doubt. And it would be a close race with Erasmus, you would have to check the exact years as to who comes first. And afaik Cajetan did not have a Greek and Latin NT and a Paraphrase where he consistently included the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus in Mark, as did Erasmus.


You can find a lot about the Cajetan and Catherinus Mark ending positions at:

Biblical Scholarship and the Church: A Sixteenth-century Crisis of Authority
Allan K. Jenkins, Patrick Preston

And I agree that the dispute may have started in the 1530 commentary, it looks like Catherinus was responding around 1532 and then more later.

Keep in mind though that Cajetan was an Aquinas expert, and at least in the Catena Aurea Aquinas does a lot of ECW referencing of the Mark ending (without bothering with the omission quibble).

Above I didn't mention Grotius because it looked like your survey was emphasizing contra argumentation. Granted, due to his early time and superb analytical reputation, Grotius might get a special nod. However I did not see Osiander and Burgon in your paper, which seemed to indicate a study of one side of the history.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery


Bart .. Welcome. Thanks. Understood. :)

Keep in mind that Osiander, Burgon, Morison and others are "acquainted with all kind of evidence, both pro and contra".

And if you are going backwards in time from Birch, Johann Adam Osiander (1701-1756) should count.

When James Morison (1816-1893) wrote on the ending in 1873, Mark's Memoirs of Jesus Christ, p. 467-491, he was likely more familiar with the German critical scholarship than just about anybody, including Burgon. Morison referenced Burgon a couple of times, yet he finished with a quote from:

Osiander's Vindication of the Genuineness of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark:

"the Paragraph must necessarily be retained in the evangelical text"


Later, Morison did a partial fliip. I’ll try to document a bit here.

Similarly, Herman Gustav Hoelemann's 1885 survey in Letzte Bibelstudien referenced Osiander. Apparantly incorrectly as J. E. Osiander, which would be Johann Ernst (1792-1870) however he got the 1753 year right. Osiander was writing with the young Wilhelm Friedrich Immanuel Gesner (1733-1791).

Exercitatio Academica Nova, Qua Ostenditur, Duodecim Postrema Commata, Marci Capite Decimo Sexto Exstantia, Esse Genvina

And I've wondered if one of our language scholars would give a skilled translation of the section, which is historically significant and not long. Notice the connection to the heavenly witnesses in defense of the pure Bible text, and the reference to Lutheran scholar Johann Gerhard. Likely the elder, (1582–1637) whose Loci Theologici could be an addition to your survey of the historical Mark ending debate. Gerhard was a major contributor on the heavenly witnesses as well with the two-part 1619 dissertation being combined here:

1721 Commentatio uberior in dictum Johanneum, 1 Jo. V, 7., de tribus in coelo testibus

an elite writing that would serve us well to be translated into English. :)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery


Angelo Mai's 1857 edition is reviewed in the Christian Remembrancer in 1859 and they reference the Vaticanus blank space.

Christian Remembrance (1859)
The Vatican Codex and Syriac Gospels

Again, the last twelve verses in the Textus Receptus of S. Mark arc wanting in the Vatican MS., and a blank page is left in the codex. There is a note declaring that it is exploratissimum, that the passage ought to be retained ....(continues)

So 1857/1858 may be the first accurate reference, a bit before any editions from Tischendorf or from Vercellone and Cozza. Followed by the Burgon analysis.

Yours in Jesus,
The Kelhoffer url is above, and the pages are 5-25.

The above is meant mostly as a sketch and outline of the writers and issues.

Steven Avery

Erasmux ommments on the Mark ending

Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples and the Three Maries Debates (2009)
Introduction, Latin text, English translation and Annotation by
Sheila M. Porrer

In his New Testament, Erasmus had referred to Jerome’s questioning of the authenticity of Mark 16. 9 onwards and to problems caused by seeming inconsistencies between Matthew and Mark 175. On the second section of Mark 16, he had written, “Saint Jerome notes in his Letters that this chapter, which we read in Mark, is not accepted by several [writers], and is placed at the end in almost all the Greek books, like a late addition. Moreover, that [Mark] here relates different things from the other Gospellists. And he [Jerome] also recommends this: that punctuation (subdistinctio) should be placed here, before “mane”, so that we should understand that Christ rose in the evening, then appeared to Mary early on the first day after the Sabbath, reading it like this: “When Jesus had risen”, so that it goes on after the interposition of a comma (hypostigme), “he appeared to Mary....”176. Any such suggestion of inconsistency or interpolation in the Gospels would bring Lefevre to their defence, and the suggestion that Christ might have risen in the evening (vespere) was the first thing he set out to disprove.

175 The Vulgate text of Mark 16. 9 on the Resurrection “mane” (“in the morning, early” - Greek (Grk)) might seem to contradict Matthew’s “Vespere” (28. 1), Greek (Grk), (“late”).

176 “Diuus Hieronymus in epistolis indicat hoc caput, quod in Marco legimus, a plaerisque non recipi et in omnibus pene Graecorum libris in fine poni, velut adiectitium. Propterea quod hie diuersa narret a reliquis Euangelistis. Admonet autem et illud subdistinctionem esse faciendam, ante mane, vt intelligamus Christum vespere surrexisse, deinde prima sabbati visum esse Mariae, hoc modo legentes. Quum surrexisset Iesus, et hie interposita hypostigme sequatur: Apparuit Mariae etc. ...” (Reeve I, pp. 147-8; ASD VI-5, p. 434) Cf. below, p. 257, n. 1 (note on the English text). The authenticity of the final verses of Mark 16 has been questioned by Bible commentators - sec Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 226 sq
. p. 55-56
Jacques Lefèvre d'Etaples (1455-1536)èvre_d'Étaples

thus becomes an early defender of authenticity, by noting the Erasmus historical account, and any doubts that it may engender. Around the same time as Ambrosius Catharinus.

Another section later:

1 I was going to finish here, most eminent François, had it not suddenly occurred to me that it was not only the number of these three holy women that made many people uncertain about the way in which the Gospel should be understood, but also the three days of the death and entombment of CHRIST. And that some people1, overwhelmed by the difficulty of the problem, struggled so much to understand this that they claimed that the Gospellists had said conflicting things, and, unable to find any agreement, they resorted to the view that Mark’s testimony should not be accepted, and that part of his Gospel should be cut out; but none of this do I consider to be true, or necessary in order to unravel the difficulty of the question. And it seemed to me not inappropriate either to explore this too while we were about it (inasfar as the Lord may enlighten us in this matter, for we are darkness, and can do nothing by ourselves alone).

Firstly therefore we shall quote the words of the Gospellists, in which the Lord predicts that he will rise on the third day. For Matthew says: “Then
charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was JESUS the CHRIST. [41r] From that time forth began JESUS to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” And again in another place he presents the Lord addressing his disciples in these words:

“Behold we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.”

And Mark says of the Lord:

“For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.”

And Luke on the same also has a similar expression, introducing the Lord questioning his disciples, and admonishing them, in this way: “But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The CHRIST of God. And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing; saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” And again in a different place, he introduces the Lord addressing the disciples thus: “Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished, for he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated and spitted on: [41v] and they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.” Behold, from Matthew, Mark and Luke, how the Lord most clearly rose on the third day from his execution, which was immediately followed by his burial on the same day before the Sabbath in the evening.

2 But some people will bring up against us arguments from the writings of certain authors, which however are of little value, especially if they seem to contradict, in however trifling a manner, the intelligence of the gospel spirit. And firstly from Ambrose, defending the position that the Lord rose at night, in his exposition of this: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week”2. “Firstly, therefore, we must investigate how it is that it is written: ‘In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week’”. And he adds: “For he did not rise on the day of the Sabbath (for they rested on the day of the Sabbath, according to the commandment), but after the day of the Sabbath, and indeed at night.”3

3 Here we firstly say that it is not written that the Lord rose “in the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week”, but that the women came then to see the tomb. For this is what Matthew says: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” Although even if the Lord had risen in that night which follows the Sabbath, this does not mean that he would not have risen on the third day, for the custom of the Hebrews is to start their natural day from the beginning of the night, and night, [42r] for the Hebrews, precedes the created day, as it is written: “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” And so in this way, since the Lord died on the day before the Sabbath, and since he lay in the tomb for the whole of the Sabbath,
if he had risen in the night which followed the Sabbath, which is the beginning of the third day, without doubt he would have risen on the third day.

1 - Probably a reference to Erasmus' 1516 Annotations on Mark 16. 14, referring back to Mark 16.9 (Reeve I, pp. 147-148; ASD VI-5, p. 434), where Erasmus had cited Jerome in his Letters to Hedibia [Ad Hedibiam iii, Epistularium II, ed.cit., p. 481; cf. Erasmus’ Jerome edition, vol. IV, fo. 64r-v). Jerome had noted doubts about the authenticity of the last part of Mark 16, and alternatively suggested punctuating Mark 16. 9 in such a way as to separate the Resurrection from the appearance to Mary Magdalen. For Erasmus’ comment see above, Introduction, p. 56, n. 176. Several points in the De Triduo can be read as replies to Erasmus (cf. above, p. 56 sq.), for example, below, p. 263, n. 6; p. 299, n. 51; p. 303, nn. 63 and 64; and also in the Disceptatio Secunda, below, p. 449, n. 38. Lefevre may also have been thinking of the De Triduo Christi of Paul of Middelburg - see above, p. 54.

(SA note: some of the material to check is p. 176 of this book, and the Paul of Middelburg material, and the Erasmus Annotation from the Anne Reeve book.)

2 - Matthew 28. 1.

3 - Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam, x, ca. 150, ed. cit., p. 388. For Lefevre’s arguments for and against Ambrose in this passage in his pamphlets on the Magdalen, see above, p. 199, n. 45, and below, p. 475 sq.

Library visit needed for continuation on p. 261, 265 271, 273, 277, 279, 291, 293, 301, 303, 305 and more
(although some of the Latin is there, especially on the pages more directly involved with the Mark 16 harmony)
p. 263 267 269 275, 281 283 285 287 289 295 297 299 307 are still on the overall topics, including the third day, and are online.

Quite an incredible section.


James A. Kelhoffer has a bit here:

Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000)

Just prior to the turn of the nineteenth century, however, the observation of the omission of Mark 16:9—20 after 16:8 in Codex Vaticanus (B) gave rise to doubts concerning the Markan authorship of the LE. Certain readings of Vaticanus were published between 1788 and 1801 by the Danish scholar Andreas Birch, who apparently was the first person since Erasmus in the sixteenth century to be aware of the absence of the LE in this codex.21

21 - ... Frederic Kenyon notes concerning Erasmus, “A few readings from [Vaticanus] were supplied to Erasmus by his correspondent Sepulveda, but too late for use in his editions of the New Testament.
It seems like a conjecture, reasonable, but not definite, that the Mark ending omission was included in the correspondence with Sepulveda. The Kenyon "too late" comment is not really helpful, since Kenyon omits the negative comments that Erasmus made about the readings and the manuscript, and one or two notes related to the Sepulveda letter appear to have made the Annotations in later editions, especially the Vaticanus errant spelling of Clauda as Cauda , καυδα, in Acts 27:16.

We know nothing about these 365 readings except one. Erasmus in his Annotationes on Acts 27:16 wrote that according to the Codex from the Library Pontifici, the name of the island is καυδα (Cauda), not κλαυδα (Clauda) as in his Novum Testamentum (Tamet si quidam admonent in codice Graeco pontificiae bibliothecae scriptum haberi, καυδα, id est, cauda). See: Erasmus Desiderius, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: Acts – Romans – I and II Corinthians, ed. A. Reeve and M. A. Sceech, (Brill: Leiden 1990), p. 931. Andrew Birch was the first, who identified this note with 365 readings of Sepulveda.

Chris Thomas

And I believe there is a bit more than Acts 27:16 conjectured from the Sepulveda letter.
In general you have to be careful with Chris Thomas, here he is using Wikipedia
A review is given by Kelhoffer about some earlier scholarship on the earlier scholarship on p.5:

... no less than six such reviews of scholarship have been undertaken since 1973.15 These offerings by Joseph Hug, Veronika Krauss, Paul Mirecki, Steven L. Cox and others all focus upon certain aspects of the LE and, for the most part, review different contributions to the study of Mark

J. Hug, La finale de I’evangile de Marc, pp. 11—32;

Veronika Krauss, “‘Verkiindet das Evangelium der ganzen Schopfung!’ Eine exegetisch-bibeltheologische Untersuchung von
Mk 16,9-20,” (Diss., Wien, 1980) 1—13a;

P. Mirecki, “Mark 16:9-20: Composition, Tradition and Redaction.” pp. 1—23; and

S. L. Cox, History and Critique of Scholarship, pp. 13—95; cf.

Gary W. Trompf, “The Markusschluss in Recent Research,” AusBR 21 (1973) 15—26;

Virtus E. Gideon, “The Longer Ending of Mark in Recent Study,” in New Testament Studies: Essays in Honor of Ray Summers in his Sixty-Fifth Year (cd. H. L. Drumwright and C. Vaughn; Waco, TX: Markham Press Fund, 1975) 3—12.

Steven Avery

Erasmus paraphrase of Mark

Power and Prejudice: The Reception of the Gospel of Mark (1999)
Brenda Deen Schildgen

Though he notes that Jerome’s text and other codices end at 16:8 in the Annotations and in his edition of the Greek New Testament, Erasmus concludes his Paraphrase on Mark by making use of the other Gospels and the longer ending of Mark. Essentially, Eke Augustine before him, Erasmus demonstrates Mark’s agreement with the other Gospels. Also like Augustine, he uses the Markan text as the basis of his own theological agenda, addressed to “Christian soldiers” who are encouraged to reform.
Here is the Paraphrase from Mark 16:16 to the end.

Paraphrase on Mark

'And lest your preaching lack credibility, you will have the added power of miracles, as long as the gospel faith is present and the matter itself demands a miracle. The chief power of the evangelical grace is spiritual, yet if the progress of the gospel requires a miracle, that power, too, will be at hand for the sake of incredulous and weak men. Those who put their faith in me will cast out demons, not in their name, but in mine; they will speak in new tongues. They will drive off snakes; and if they drink poison it will not harm them. They will lay their hands on the sick and they will be healed. Greater is the miracle that takes place in the heart, but it remains hidden. Avarice, desire, ambition, hatred, wrath, and envy are the poisons and diseases of the soul. They will drive them off in my name and will do so forever. But for the sake of weak men and those who have difficulty believing, miracles too will sometimes be worked so that crass men may see that the Spirit within them is more powerful than human strength.'

When the Lord Jesus had told his disciples these and other things, he withdrew to heaven and there sits at the right hand of God the Father.

But the disciples, after receiving the heavenly Spirit, preached, as they had been commanded, not only in Judaea but in all regions. And their cause was successful, although the world resisted, for the Lord Jesus was displaying his power in the apostles through his Spirit; and he was confirming with miracles wrought everywhere what they were promising in words.
Here is a little summary of his Annotations, with the usual textcrit spin.

Erasmus A Study Of His Life Ideals And Place In History (1962, original 1923)
by Preserved Smith

Erasmus detected two other important early interpolations, the last twelve verses of Mark’s gospel and the passage about the woman taken in adultery (John vii: 53—viii: 11). Though he retained them in his text, he honestly noted that the former passage was doubtful and that the latter was lacking in the best authorities.
Here you can see Ehrman doing the typical ultra-deception:

Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (2005)
Bart D. Ehrman

And so familiar passages to readers of the English Bible * from the King James in 1611 onward, up until modern editions of the twentieth century -- include the woman taken in adultery, the last twelve verses of Mark, and the Johannine Comma, even though none of these passages can be found in the oldest and superior manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. They entered into the English stream of consciousness merely by a chance of history, based on manuscripts that Erasmus just happened to have handy to him, and one that was manufactured for his benefit.
[TC-Alternate-list] Ehrman plays textual community for fools, Erasmus mss cause of Mark ending, Pericope Adultera, heavenly witnesses in our
Steven Avery - Aug 22, 2013