Islam critiqued seeks manuscript help; early corroboration of the resurrection?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

This youtuber then speaks of manuscripts supposedly supporting the resurrection.

The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known manuscript of the NT and in the gospel of Mark, it doesnt mention anything about the resurrection. In that manuscript, the gospel of Mark stops at verse 16:8. Nothing, whether in the wording used or the context indicates that this ending was unintended. The author simply knew nothing of the resurrection tale. The story ends right after the discovery of the empty tomb and after the 3 women leave the tomb. These women, according to Mark, feared telling anyone of what the angel reported, despite the angel's instructions to tell the disciples. And yet, if the women told no one, how could Mark be telling his story?

The last 12 verses describing Jesus' resurrection and his appearance to the disciples were added later, as part of the overall retrospective re-write of Jesus' story. Mark is regarded as the earliest Gospel and the other Gospels, namely Luke and Matthew seem to be an effort to develop upon Mark's account.
Eusebius and Jerome explicitly state that almost all the Greek MSS available to them end at verse 8:

Eusebius Ad Marinum 1 - "How is it that in Matthew the Savior, after having been raised, appears 'late on the Sabbath' but in Mark 'Early on the first day of the week'? The Solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, namely the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, 'Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene' and the words that follow. In addition to these it says, 'And having heard this they fled and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.' For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies."

Also, Eusebius, in his Church History (3.39.) notes the role that a presbyter named Aristion had in the transmission of Mark's gospel. We also read in Peake's Commentary, p818 that

"A 10th century Armenian MS ascribes the passage to Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias."

Jerome 120 to Hedybia Concerning Twelve Questions 3 -

"The solution to the question [of why the endings of Mark and Matthew contradict one another] is twofold. Either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which appears scarsely in copies of the gospel, while almost all books in Greek do not have this pericope at the end..."

These 2 men are writing in the 4-5th century and testifying that even by their time, the longer ending is absent from the vast, if not all original Greek manuscripts available to them. The most revealing admission is that Mark, the disciple to whom the Gospel is ascribed, might not have been the one testifying to the events and whose words were canonized in their days. In the 2nd century, Church figures such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tatian paraphrase or thematicaly allude to the contents of this omitted passage. This simply shows the evolving nature of Christianity's 2Tim3:16"God-breathed" scriptures, the progressive inclusion of oral legends into the text. Besides the lack of physical evidence, there are also obvious stylistic and thematic differences between that passage and the rest of Mark's Gospel.

In Contra Celsus, Origen's famous work addressing the objections of the pagan thinker Celsus, Origen tries (unsuccessfully) to defend the assertions of Christianity, including the most important, that Jesus resurrected. He quotes detail citations from Matthew, Luke and John to support the resurrection as he was specifically challenged to produce post-resurrection evidence yet he doesnt mention anything beyond Mark16:8. This despite ORigen being the most outstanding Christian manuscript expert of his time, using all scriptural means at his disposal to support the post-resurrection story against the charges of the sceptics.

Modern scholars contend that

"At least nine versions of the ending of Mark can be found among the 1,700 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts and early translations of the gospel".

The NIV bible also comments

"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"

Another ending, called the Shorter Ending is found in an Old Latin manuscript of Mark. Six 7 to 10th century Greek manuscripts and some Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic and Ethiopic manuscripts have this shorter ending either in the margin or between 16:8 and 16:9, with minor variations. One Bohairic manuscript, made in 1174, accompanies Mark 16:9-20 with the note,

"This is the chapter expelled from the Greek."

Codex Vaticanus (mid-4th century), Syriacus (5th century translation), Bobiensis (4th-5thcentury Latin), approximately 100 early Armenian translations, and the two oldest Georgian translations are all early manuscripts that exclude the resurrection.

As a side note, Codex Vaticanus (mid-4th century) omits 1-2 Timothy, Titus, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, and Revelation as well as everything after Hebrews 9:14.

Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) misses 40 pages -- including Matt1:1-25:6, Jn6:50-8:52, 2Cor4:13-12:6.

Codex Bezae (5th-6th century) has the gospels (lots of omissions) and the Acts (missing from 29:22 onwards).

Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this longer ending. The NAB translation includes the footnote:

"[9-20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."