The Conspiracy Theology =
We've seen that Eusebius provides evidence that GMark ended at 16:8 by testifying that quality and quantity of Manuscripts supported that. Apologists like James O Snapp make the ridiculous argument that Eusebius was limited to only presenting a hypothetical argument that a Believer could make and not Eusebius' own opinion. In response to a later question though Eusebius makes clear that he thought GMark ended at 16:8:
GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
As I've mentioned here and as generally confessed by CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) Eusebius thought GMark originally ended at 16:8. The above likewise indicates that Eusebius thought original GLuke had no resurrection sightings. This would be the definition of a Difficult Reading. Certainly the Critical Apparatus should mention regarding the ending of GLuke. The repression inherent in the Christian System:Mark and Luke did not even mention the incidents in John and Matthew—I mean, of course, the appearances of the
Saviour—but left them for their betters, Matthew and John, to tell, while themselves telling the secondary incidents, and
filling in what the others had passed over in silence.27
- 1. As far as I know I Am the only one in the history of Bible commentary who has ever mentioned the above.
2. Earlier in history Eusebius' related work would have been much more widely available and complete.
3. The above was not translated into English until an amateur (Pearse) did so in 2015.
4. As I've mentioned here Coombs wrote a book on Eusebius' book but fails to mention the above. When I mentioned it to James O Snapp, the foremost defender of the LE the world has ever known (since Burgon started spinning apologies in his grave), he acted like he had never heard of it.
Bonus material for Solo = It could be a trap. So mind your Ps and Qs.
Skeptical Textual Criticism