The NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION should remove EUSEBIUS from the Mark 16:8 footnotes

No video

The NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION should remove EUSEBIUS from the Mark 16:8 footnotes

Рет қаралды 706

Dwayne Green

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 10

@revdavidpeters 4 ай бұрын

Bro, thank you so much for bringing this to light! I suspect not many scholars will pick this up as it would make certain recent books inaccurate 😉

@eclipsesonic 2 ай бұрын

It's not just Marinus, but Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Tatian's Diatessaron and Justin Martyr's First Apology all reference the longer ending of Mark and these three guys were all from the 2nd century, so they obviously had manuscript copies that contained Mark 16:9-20.

@OrthodoxPhilip 4 ай бұрын

This is exactly the kind of stuff I find lacking in biblical scholarship. Most people only care about EXTANT old Greek manuscripts. But what about Greek manuscripts which are not extant, but we know through early Church figures like Marinus? Great find!

@JonStallings 4 ай бұрын

So now we have to interpret the translators? 😀 Seriously, great video on the topic.

@seansimpson1133 4 ай бұрын

I would personally say that even Hebrews 2 is proof for the longer ending “”how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.“ ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭2‬:‭3‬-‭4‬ ‭ESV‬‬ My NLT gives mark 16:17-18 as a cross reference to this verse.

@vusumzingceke6518 4 ай бұрын

Funny that is exactly how I understood Eusibius - I have that exact book. Most critical text advocates misunderstood him. I like the fact that you are pointing it out the fact that Marinus was struggling with the text he had..

@herminiohernandezjr.9316 4 ай бұрын

I do not think he is stating a hypothetical. I think he talking stating the arguments that he has been dealing with and likely heard. He does acknowledge there are variants in Mark.

@Dizerner 4 ай бұрын

Interesting points.

@matthewmurphyrose4793 4 ай бұрын

The question presents itself: If Eusebius was "reporting" that "almost all" MSS in his day didn't contain the section, then where are their numerous ancestors? And if this or that CT advocate does push said narrative - how are they any different than TR/KJV advocates who attempt to argue the possibility that the Comma and/or other readings could have been in the majority in times past (as opposed to the extant data) upon similar lines?

@Dwayne_Green 4 ай бұрын

This is an excellent point! When you consider that our 2nd century and earlier contain not even a hint of controversy with this passage, almost makes one think the majority of mss had it in the first and second century!