Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Scott Pitta]

A textual critic is concerned with the words, phrases and history of a specific document. They are not focussed on theology.

Several of the renderings of Mt. 28:19 have a wide range of wording. Which wording and phrases are original to the Greek, and which ones are original to the Hebrew ? Which readings are not original to either the Hebrew or the Greek ??

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by 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 ??

There might be no variation from the Greek texts, because they all probably rely upon the first translation of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew. If the first translation was faulty then it follows that all that follow it will also be faulty.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

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.

Is our motivation theological?: Some may question our efforts to prove that the traditional text of Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation as theologically motivated because we need it. However that is incorrect, for even before discovering the writings of Pastor A. Ploughman, for many years we were already teaching baptism in the name of Jesus using the traditional Matthew 28:19.

As I have clearly demonstrated in my many years in the ministry, we had no problem using the traditional text to teach baptism in the name of Jesus. So any accusation that my motivation for teaching this message is such is simply false and bogus. We have no “need” for the traditional text of Matthew to be an alteration for us to teach baptism in the name of Jesus.

We are exposing it as an alteration or interpolation, because we strongly believe that it indeed is an interpolation or change, which probably happen in the first translation from the Hebrew into the Greek.

If the trinitarians want to assume our motivations, that is on them. I do not have any desire to placate the Trinitarians for after all to them I was already a heretic for many years before I begun spreading this message, because I preached baptism in the holy name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Scott Pitta]

Yet there are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew to back up your claim. What about Latin or Syriac manuscripts of Matthew ?? Are there Latin or Syriac translations that have variant readings of Mt. 28:19 ??

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Yet there are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew to back up your claim. What about Latin or Syriac manuscripts of Matthew ?? Are there Latin or Syriac translations that have variant readings of Mt. 28:19 ??

There might not be variants of the Latin, for the simple reason that most of the Latin texts were actually translations of the Greek manuscripts.

As to the Syriac manuscripts, I have not studied that issue, so I can not make any comments regarding that, except for the translation by Professor Francis Crawford Burkitt, M.A. University lecturer in Paleography, Vol. I p. 172, 173: It has the following text for Matthew 28:19 translated from the Old Syriac texts.

“Go forth [and] make disciples of all the peoples, and they shall believe in me” (by F.C. Burkitt)

[Scott Pitta]

Latin and Syriac were the first 2 languages the NT was translated into. If there were variations of the text, it might show up in those translations.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

A fabrication?There is actually a list of over 100 + allusions of Eusebius linking the great commission with the the name of Jesus, not with any trinity.

So-called allusions are often far-fetched, with no relevance.

So where is this list?

And why don't you list the first 10?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Latin and Syriac were the first 2 languages the NT was translated into. If there were variations of the text, it might show up in those translations.

And they, like the Greek, in fact supports the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19. In thousands of manuscripts. Every one that goes to the end of Matthew.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

As to the Syriac manuscripts, I have not studied that issue, so I can not make any comments regarding that, except for the translation by Professor Francis Crawford Burkitt, M.A. University lecturer in Paleography, Vol. I p. 172, 173: It has the following text for Matthew 28:19 translated from the Old Syriac texts.
“Go forth [and] make disciples of all the peoples, and they shall believe in me” (by F.C. Burkitt)

No. Wrong again. This is not from the Old Syriac texts, which are lacuna at this point.

Francis Crawford Burkitt (1864-1933) was working with the Diatessaron in his footnote.
The Diatessaron is a Gospel harmony. taking from all the Gospels and ending up with one modified text.

Here is a more exhaustive discussion of the Diatessaron from James Snapp:

The Eusebian Form of Matthew 28:19 - A Little Analysis -
James Snapp - July 17, 2010
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/5900

The hundreds of extant Peshitta mss. all support the traditional text.

"Old Syriac"
The Sinaitic Syriac ms. has no text after Matthew 28:6 extant.
The Curetonian is lacuna from an earlier point. Matthew 22:25.

You should read your own references and get your information straight.

Evangelion da-Mepharreshe : the Curetonian Version of the four gospels, with the readings of the Sinai palimpsest and the early Syriac patristic evidence
Francis Crewford Burkitt
https://books.google.com/books?id=1YzNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA172 (1904)
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092359698/page/n193 (1904)
reprints
https://books.google.com/books?id=SzKzDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA172
https://books.google.com/books?id=SzKzDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA173

==============================

This is from Origen's Commentary on Matthew, c. 200 AD.

Origen Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew - Boox XII
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf0...V=20#highlight

But on the third day He rose from the dead,5692 in order that having delivered them from the wicked one, and his son,5693 in whom was falsehood and unrighteousness and war and everything opposed to that which Christ is, and also from the profane spirit who transforms himself into the Holy Spirit, He might gain for those who had been delivered the right to be baptized in spirit and soul and body, into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which represent the three days eternally present at the same time to those who by means of them are sons of light.

This is way before Eusebius, and there are many such quotes. They may be a good collection on an earlier post here.

[textualcriticism] Matthew 28:19 - the most attested verse ? - early church writers (ECW)
Steven Avery - July 16,2010
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/5899

The James Snapp post above was a response to this one.

]============================

Plus you omitted that Burkitt also added Syriac early church writer sources that support the traditional text.

Acts of Thomas (pp. 193, 301, 324)
Doctrine of Addai (pp. 20, 30, 34)
Apkraates (p. 496).

"..Acts of Thomas 324, as preserved in the G/A century palimpsest fragments at Sinai (Studia Sinaitica ix 34)"

============================

I've learned to never trust your scholarship.

Steven

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And they, like the Greek, in fact supports the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19. In thousands of manuscripts. Every one that goes to the end of Matthew.

You mentioned thousands of manuscripts, but it would not matter if there were millions of such manuscripts, because if the first text has been changed all the ones following the first will also have that change.

Just like Jesus said, the blind following the blind. they will all fall into the ditch.