Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The writers of the NT provide different accounts of the great commission. Unless a church father identifies Matthew as the author of his quote, we do not know if they are quoting from Matthew, Mark or Luke.

If we are trying to determine the original wording of Mt. 28:19, references to Mark or Luke will not help. Only specific quotes to Matthew will.

Early church father references to the great commission that do not specifically label Matthew by name cannot be used to verify the wording of Mt. 28:19.

How many of the early church fathers refer specifically to Matthew ??

Your question presupposes a pay grade well above that of the one you are asking.

This is New World Translation-level "expertise" you're trying to investigate. Almost as hard as figuring out what's actually in a Big Mac.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The writers of the NT provide different accounts of the great commission. Unless a church father identifies Matthew as the author of his quote, we do not know if they are quoting from Matthew, Mark or Luke.

If we are trying to determine the original wording of Mt. 28:19, references to Mark or Luke will not help. Only specific quotes to Matthew will.

Early church father references to the great commission that do not specifically label Matthew by name cannot be used to verify the wording of Mt. 28:19.

How many of the early church fathers refer specifically to Matthew ??

The wording reveals what gospel they are quoting.

There is a whole background history linking the Hebrew gospel of Matthew to Eusebius, so yes I am quite confident that he was quoting Matthew.

Eusebius inherited his library from Pamphilus, that is a big clue.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The wording reveals what gospel they are quoting.

There is a whole background history linking the Hebrew gospel of Matthew to Eusebius, so yes I am quite confident that he was quoting Matthew.

Eusebius inherited his library from Pamphilus, that is a big clue.

Flat earth, anyone?

[Scott Pitta]

If there is variation to the quotes from Mt. 28:19, which variation is the original Hebrew wording ? There are more words in that sentence from Matthew than the word "name".

If there is no consistency in the variations, how does one pick out which one is superior ?

If the Greek Mt. 28:19 that we have is but one of many variations, why substitute it for a different variation ??

[FlamingZword]

The baptism in the triune phrase is a single scripture doctrine. The idea that a biblical teaching especially an important one, can be founded upon a single scripture, independent of all the others and even contrary to others scriptures, goes against the very teaching of the scriptures themselves. The scriptures themselves make it clear that all doctrines are to be based upon more than one single scripture. For misinterpreting or twisting a single scripture is not hard to accomplish, it is done frequently by false cults to support their pet doctrine or theory. It becomes harder to sustain a doctrine when a teacher must produce at least two scriptures to support a particular teaching.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The baptism in the triune phrase is a single scripture doctrine. The idea that a biblical teaching especially an important one, can be founded upon a single scripture, independent of all the others and even contrary to others scriptures, goes against the very teaching of the scriptures themselves. The scriptures themselves make it clear that all doctrines are to be based upon more than one single scripture.

Nobody is arguing that the triune baptismal method is correct, what is being argued is whether you can change the wording of the Bible based on your research presented here. There is nothing you've posted that supports changing the wording of Matthew 28:19. No one is saying use it as the baptismal formula (after all, it even says to baptize in the name), but rather people are rightfully pointing out that changing the Bible based on writings from afterwards is tantamount to heresy (or at least is on the path towards it).

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Your question presupposes a pay grade well above that of the one you are asking.

This is New World Translation-level "expertise" you're trying to investigate. Almost as hard as figuring out what's actually in a Big Mac.

Would you consider the following New World Translation-level "expertise" ?

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1898), (1963) Volume 1 “Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.”, “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew.

In 1574 Szymon Budny (Simon Budnaeus) (1530-1593), Polish translator of the Bible (Biblia nieświeska), Simon was anti-trinitarian and he criticized Matthew 28:19 due to its Latinized wording. He argued that a Jewish scribe like Matthew could not have possible written such Europeanized wording and structure. Theses de Deo trino et uno by professor and historian Szymon Budny. Pentecost before Azusa (1991) Doctor of Divinity Marvin M. Arnold.

In 1877 Ernest Renan, scholar and philosopher, published (F) —Les Évangiles et la seconde génération chrétienne (The Gospels and the Second Generation of Christians): p. 197 “The baptismal formula was expanded [changed] to include in a rather syncretic form the three words of the sacramental theology of the time: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The germ of the dogma of the Trinity is thus deposited in a corner of the sacred page, and become fruitful.”

Professor Eduard Karl August Riehm in his Handwörterbuch des Biblischen Altertums für gebildete Bibelleser (G) Dictionary of biblical antiquity for educated readers of the Bible (1884) p. 1620, puts Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5 and Romans 6:3 as the real mode of baptism and dismisses Matthew 28:19 as not authentic.

History of Dogma (1893) 3rd English edition, Vol. I footnote 75 & 76 by Dr. Adolph Harnack (1851-1930) Theologian and Church historian. “Matt. XXVIII. 19, is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus, and has not the authority in the Apostolic age, which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself.”

Im Namen Jesu (G) In the Name of Jesus (1902) by Wilhelm Heitmüller, theologian, calls Matthew 28:19 spurious and says: “It would be superfluous to show all over again that the direct institution of baptism through Jesus, as it is recounted in Mt 28, is historically untenable.” In this book Doctor Heitmüller argues from linguistics that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt and that the only linguistic text that would be correct is “in the name of Jesus.”

Encyclopedia Biblica (1903), Vol. IV, Art. “Son of God” section 4698, #15 by Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures Nathanael Schmidt, “That the Trinitarian formula does not go back to Jesus himself is evident and recognized by all independent critics”

All of these were written before the UPCI existed or I was even born.
And I got a whole lot more of those citations.

Now here look at what a Trinitarian has admitted.

“the trinitarian baptismal injuction with which St. Matthew’s Gospel concludes cannot possible be original because it is clear that baptism was originally in Jesus’ name alone;” The Divine Trinity (1985) by Professor of Theology, David Brown (A trinitarian).

[Scott Pitta]

Without doing any research into the above post, I suggest they are all trinitarians. Not just the last one.

When it comes to textual criticism, one counts actual manuscripts, not theological commentary. What matters is what one can prove. Proof is seen in actual manuscripts, not assessments.

The earliest manuscripts of Matthew have the wording in question. Whatever assessment is made, it must admit the age of the wording in question.

[Scott Pitta]

All of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew 28:19 read the same.

Or, assessments that claim the given reading in Mt. 28:19 as late or unoriginal must provide documentation to verify their claims.

If the given reading is late, why do all the earliest manuscripts have the same reading ?? Why is there no variation over time ??

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Nobody is arguing that the triune baptismal method is correct, what is being argued is whether you can change the wording of the Bible based on your research presented here. There is nothing you've posted that supports changing the wording of Matthew 28:19. No one is saying use it as the baptismal formula (after all, it even says to baptize in the name), but rather people are rightfully pointing out that changing the Bible based on writings from afterwards is tantamount to heresy (or at least is on the path towards it).

If anything it will make Trinitarians who are deceived who run across this change, think our position needed this to verify our doctrine. Which that's a huge negative ghost Rider the way it is already is in our favor.