The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Conybeare wrote that in 1902, long before there were any JW's or oneness apostolics.

here is another learned person

Hans Kosmala (1903-1981), one of the greatest Christian experts in the study of Judaism. In his article “The Conclusion of Matthew”, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), pp. 132-147, writes; “go out make all nations disciples in my name.” This variant reading will be found in the critical apparatus of NESTLE’S and KIRKPATRICK’S editions. It looks as if texts with the shorter version of 28:19b still existed round about 300 A.D. He argued that the original ending of Matthew 28:19 was “in my name”, he also said: “There are many points in favor of the Eusebian conclusion of Matthew, far more than for the traditional conclusion.” , “We have seen that this formula is late beyond any doubt and this alone makes its appearance at so early a stage a historical impossibility. The only explanation we can give is that it has been inserted here by the later Church, because it needed it in that Gospel which was the most widely used in its liturgy.”

I agree with Conybeare and Kosmala.

Why can't you just tell me which manuscripts contain the reading YOU say is the true and correct one? Instead of the appeal to authority fallacy ("So and So is an expert, and he says ABC, therefore ABC is true")?

[Scott Pitta]

Eusebius said there were manuscripts with a different ending. No such manuscripts exist today. We can only translate the manuscripts that we have, not ones that we had.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Why can't you just tell me which manuscripts contain the reading YOU say is the true and correct one? Instead of the appeal to authority fallacy ("So and So is an expert, and he says ABC, therefore ABC is true")?

Conybeare and Kosmala were not some clueless hillbillies living in a trailer park, they were learned men of high reputation.

The great Dr. Adolph Harnack (1851-1930), Theologian and Church historian was another person who believed the original wording in Mat 28:19 was "in my name", he heartily dismissed the Trinitarian text as unauthentic.

Dr, Marvin Arnold (1921-2001), a true Apostolic believer and pioneer, rejected the text in Mat 28:19 and insisted it should say "in my Name".

I am not citing some toothless ignorant fellas.

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Conybeare and Kosmala were not some clueless hillbillies living in a trailer park, they were learned men of high reputation.

The great Dr. Adolph Harnack (1851-1930), Theologian and Church historian was another person who believed the original wording in Mat 28:19 was "in my name", he heartily dismissed the Trinitarian text as unauthentic.

Dr, Marvin Arnold (1921-2001), a true Apostolic believer and pioneer, rejected the text in Mat 28:19 and insisted it should say "in my Name".

I am not citing some toothless ignorant fellas.

Again, what are they basing their opinions on?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Conybeare and Kosmala were not some clueless hillbillies living in a trailer park, they were learned men of high reputation.

The great Dr. Adolph Harnack (1851-1930), Theologian and Church historian was another person who believed the original wording in Mat 28:19 was "in my name", he heartily dismissed the Trinitarian text as unauthentic.

Dr, Marvin Arnold (1921-2001), a true Apostolic believer and pioneer, rejected the text in Mat 28:19 and insisted it should say "in my Name".

I am not citing some toothless ignorant fellas.

I simply asked, multiple times, WHAT MANUSCRIPTS CONTAIN THE ENDING YOU SAY IS THE CORRECT ONE, and you have simply refused, multiple times, to provide that information.

Conclusion? You have no idea. You found two experts who allegedly support your claim, and you quote their opinions as the final answer. I have found "experts" are no more exempt from error and agenda than the rest of us. In any event, you have not only failed to make your case, you have shown you yourself have not actually researched the issue, by FACT CHECKING the claims you have accepted as gospel truth. Otherwise, it would be a simple matter to just provide the evidence. Couldest thou not have googled for fifteen minutes, at least?

Oh, and poor Tennessee folk in trailer parks with dental problems may be praying for you. Despise them not.

[Esaias]

Jesus said "my words will never pass away". But this theory proposes that is exactly what happened...

[Scott Pitta]

God's words will never pass away, but those who copied the manuscripts of the Bible do so imperfectly.

No two manuscripts of the Bible are word for word identical. But it is not difficult to compare them to determine, fairly accurately, how the text should read. There are a few problem areas, but we do have a good idea of what the authors originally penned.

The scholars referred to are good scholars. But it seems odd that only a handful are referred to. If 50 textual critics subscribed to a change of text in Mt. 28:19, it would be noteworthy.

Eusebius is the darling of textual critics. He quotes from manuscripts we no longer have. He gives a feeling to what other theologians were thinking in his age. His quotations are very accurate.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus said "my words will never pass away". But this theory proposes that is exactly what happened...

His words never passed away, this theory does not proposes that.

even thou some people tried to erase his words from the scriptures, they still were held in some ancient citations, which are now being used to restore the original text from some texts that were corrupted.

as more discoveries are being made, the tide is slowly turning toward baptism in his name.

[Scott Pitta]

What new discoveries contribute to the text of Matthew ??

Should all citations from the fathers take precedence over the manuscripts ? Every time ?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I simply asked, multiple times, WHAT MANUSCRIPTS CONTAIN THE ENDING YOU SAY IS THE CORRECT ONE, and you have simply refused, multiple times, to provide that information.

Conclusion? You have no idea. You found two experts who allegedly support your claim, and you quote their opinions as the final answer. I have found "experts" are no more exempt from error and agenda than the rest of us. In any event, you have not only failed to make your case, you have shown you yourself have not actually researched the issue, by FACT CHECKING the claims you have accepted as gospel truth. Otherwise, it would be a simple matter to just provide the evidence. Couldest thou not have googled for fifteen minutes, at least?

Oh, and poor Tennessee folk in trailer parks with dental problems may be praying for you. Despise them not.

The Manuscripts that are known to contain the ending "in My name" are in Hebrew.
There is a very good explanation as to why there are not manuscripts in Greek with that ending.

the reason is quite simple, Matthew was a Jew, he wrote his gospel in Hebrew the language of the Jews at that time in Jerusalem. St. Paul confirms that the Jews in Jerusalem spoke Hebrew.

It was many years later when Pantænus went to India, that he found the Gospel according to Matthew written in the Hebrew language, he brought that gospel with him to Alexandria in 192 AD

it was Pantænus or one of his disciples; Clement or Alexander who most probably translated the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew into Greek, These three individuals stand out as the most likely persons to have altered the text in Matthew 28:19 when the translation was done into Greek; that is probably the reason that no Greek manuscripts with a different text have been found, because there are none. That original Hebrew Gospel was probably destroyed, so that is why there is no evidence in Greek. Pantænus died in AD 216.