In a comment to the previous post Peter Kirk raised the following question:
"Why is it that, whereas this text is widely rejected as not original, it is widely accepted at Mark 1:41, οργισθεις rather than σπλαγχνισθεις? That is, apparently most recent commentators, although not the Nestle-Aland and UBS text, prefer here a reading which is found only in the Western Text."
This topic is recently covered by Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus (pp. 133-139) where he cites his 'A Sinner in the hands of an Angry Jesus', in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne, ed. Amy M. Donaldson and Timothy B. Sailors (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
Of course much is made of the fact that one cannot imagine a scribe changing 'compassion' into 'anger', whereas one can imagine the reverse. Moreover, we know from Mark 3:5 that Jesus in Mark could be angry. Matthew and Luke, who omit the word in their use of Mark, are further cited as authority that the word was distasteful.
However, if Matthew uses Mark he often abbreviates him anyway. The same could be said for Luke. Accidental corruption is perfectly possible in Greek (and in Latin: autem miser(a)tus > autem iratus). There are many readings in D and the Old Latin witnesses that are difficult to explain but a great many scribal corruptions follow no pattern and therefore cannot be 'explained'.