Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

OK so far we have found 63 gospels of Matthew without a trinitarian text ending.

I started the collection back in 1999 with just 1 gospel of Matthew which committed the trinitarian ending, but little by little we have been able to find many more.

so this means that I am not alone in saying that the original Matthew read "in My name" instead of the triune phrase.

[Evang.Benincasa]

OK so far we have found 63 gospels of Matthew without a trinitarian text ending.

I started the collection back in 1999 with just 1 gospel of Matthew which committed the trinitarian ending, but little by little we have been able to find many more.

so this means that I am not alone in saying that the original Matthew read "in My name" instead of the triune phrase.

Where are the 63 manuscripts? I would like you to post where we can see the fragments of Papyrus, or whatever you have available as physical evidence. It is puzzling that your first post is just making a baseless claim. Like, “63 Unicorns have been found at the end of the rainbow.” Where are the Unicorns? We are happy for your excitement. But, you can’t expect us to be excited without credible, tangible, evidence of manuscripts.

[Scott Pitta]

There are zero Greek manuscripts of the book of Matthew with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19. No not one.

There may have been at one time. But there none in existence today.

[Aquila]

Where are the 63 manuscripts? I would like you to post where we can see the fragments of Papyrus, or whatever you have available as physical evidence. It is puzzling that your first post is just making a baseless claim. Like, “63 Unicorns have been found at the end of the rainbow.” Where are the Unicorns? We are happy for your excitement. But, you can’t expect us to be excited without credible, tangible, evidence of manuscripts.

You can't tell me unicorns don't exist. lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

There are zero Greek manuscripts of the book of Matthew with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19. No not one.

There may have been at one time. But there none in existence today.

Saying maybe at one time cannot be used as a source. There were Dinosaurs at one time. We can say that because we have tangible, physical evidence. So, 63 what exactly?

[Jason B]

Where are the 63 manuscripts? I would like you to post where we can see the fragments of Papyrus, or whatever you have available as physical evidence. It is puzzling that your first post is just making a baseless claim. Like, “63 Unicorns have been found at the end of the rainbow.” Where are the Unicorns? We are happy for your excitement. But, you can’t expect us to be excited without credible, tangible, evidence of manuscripts.


I second this, where are they? Are they Greek, Syriac, Coptic, or Traders Village? If they exist, I'm unaware. Admittedly though I am a novice on the different kinds of manuscripts and their datings, styles, unicals, etc. I just don't have the patience or interest to get too deep into that particular field. However, a claim like "63 manuscripts" demands tangible evidence if not explicit proof, or it means absolutely nothing.

[Steven Avery]

I second this, where are they? Are they Greek, Syriac, Coptic, or Traders Village? If they exist, I'm unaware. Admittedly though I am a novice on the different kinds of manuscripts and their datings, styles, unicals, etc. I just don't have the patience or interest to get too deep into that particular field. However, a claim like "63 manuscripts" demands tangible evidence if not explicit proof, or it means absolutely nothing. My conjecture is that, if the claim is true, it simply means that more copies of the middle ages Shem Tov Evan Bohan (The Touchstone), an anti-missionary Hebrew polemic that included his ultra-corrupt Matthew, were found.

However, he did not speak of manuscripts.

OK so far we have found 63 gospels of Matthew without a trinitarian text ending. So he might be including things like 20th and 21st century Gospels written by people who did not include the traditional ending (which is not trinitarian, it is simply scripture than actually is a linch pin of apostolic doctrine.)

[Evang.Benincasa]

This whole argument is based on conjecture. Did Eusebius really mean that Matthew 28:19 omitted the traditional ending? No, but was emphasizing the true meaning of the verse. As One God Apostolics the traditional ending is more important to us than to the Trinitarian. Because it doesn't just say in His name. But that it shows the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all being one in the same. Also those who believe that Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew not only to bring doubt to Matthew but to the whole New Testament.

[FlamingZword]

OK we have now passed over 65 gospels of Matthew we have found without the Trinitarian formula. the more research we do, the more the numbers increase.

[Esaias]

OK we have now passed over 65 gospels of Matthew we have found without the Trinitarian formula. the more research we do, the more the numbers increase.

List them, please.

[FlamingZword]

List them, please.

they are in our website http://www.apostolic-bible.com/Mt%2028.19%20short%20ending.pdf

[Esaias]

they are in our website http://www.apostolic-bible.com/Mt%2028.19%20short%20ending.pdf

Cool. You have some 65 20th and 21st century Bible translations that omit the words of the Greek text. You have ZERO Greek manuscripts that actually omit the words in question.

Thanks for playing, though.

[Esaias]

Cool. You have some 65 20th and 21st century Bible translations that omit the words of the Greek text. You have ZERO Greek manuscripts that actually omit the words in question.

Thanks for playing, though.

Furthermore, all the Bibles you mention, if they contain any footnotes, all refer to Eusebius' infamous quotaton/paraphrase. That is NOT how you establish the text.

[Scott Pitta]

Esaias is right. Since I usually enjoy disagreeing with him, I will repeat myself:

Esaias is right.

There are zero Greek manuscripts of Matthew that we now possess than omit or change Mt. 28:19.

Esaias is right.

[Esaias]

Esaias is right. Since I usually enjoy disagreeing with him, I will repeat myself:

Esaias is right.

There are zero Greek manuscripts of Matthew that we now possess than omit or change Mt. 28:19.

Esaias is right.

I am saving this post!

:happydance

[LOVE JESUS]

Well, is the rest of the Word of God true or have more gospels been found that contradict what we have already believed?

[Steven Avery]

they are in our website http://www.apostolic-bible.com/Mt%2028.19%20short%20ending.pdf Thanks for the warning that textual apostates are active in apostolic circles.

#7
7. The Truth Bible: Complete Topical Study and Reference Edition, Marvin M. Arnold - Clinton Willis - William Conner, 2000:

[FlamingZword]

Esaias is right. Since I usually enjoy disagreeing with him, I will repeat myself:

Esaias is right.

There are zero Greek manuscripts of Matthew that we now possess than omit or change Mt. 28:19.

Esaias is right.

We do not go by the Greek manuscripts because we are using quotations of the original Hebrew Matthew.

[Esaias]

We do not go by the Greek manuscripts because we are using quotations of the original Hebrew Matthew.

Well, there you go! FZ and his bunch go by a 14th century Rabbinical "version" of Matthew.

:smack

[FlamingZword]

Thanks for the warning that textual apostates are active in apostolic circles.

#7
7. The Truth Bible: Complete Topical Study and Reference Edition, Marvin M. Arnold - Clinton Willis - William Conner, 2000:

Hey we who baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are always called apostates, please come up with a new insult.

[Scott Pitta]

We base the text on manuscripts, not quotes from those manuscripts. Quotes from early church fathers are interesting. They also contribute to our understanding of the geographic distribution of a given reading.

If we had manuscripts of a Hebrew version of Matthew, that would be interesting. But there are none.

Should we replace the text of every passage with the reading of a early church father ? When should we and when should we not ?

Where are the Greek translations of the Hebrew Matthew ? Are there other glaring changes between the Hebrew Matthew and the Greek Matthew ?

[FlamingZword]

Furthermore, all the Bibles you mention, if they contain any footnotes, all refer to Eusebius' infamous quotaton/paraphrase. That is NOT how you establish the text.

You do not seem to know that it was not only Eusebius which mentioned such a phrase. Here are some more citing Matthew 28:18

Eusebius: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name”. (18 times exact citations), (100+ times allusions)
Annarikhus: “Go ye forth into all the world, and teach ye all the nations in My Name in every place.”
Aphraates: “Go forth [and] make disciples of all the peoples, and they shall believe in me”
Ephrem: “Go out into the whole world and proclaim my gospel to the whole of creation and baptize all the Gentiles.”
Thaddaeus: “And He sent us in His name to proclaim repentance and remission of sins to all the nations.”

[Esaias]

And you do not seem to understand the difference between a text, and a quotation, and a paraphrase.

The TEXT is all important. We do not follow Eusebius, we follow the Bible. You should do the same.

[Scott Pitta]

When do we replace a text that has no history of variation, with a quote from the early church fathers ?? Do we do that in other places in Matthew ? Which church father quotes are superior, or most likely to be original, than the text in question ?

Are there more examples of this in NT literature ?

[Steven Avery]

apostates, please come up with a new insult. Naah. Textual apostasy became a major force in the later 1800s, leading to the "Critical Text" full of blunders. Those who are textual apostates can have a wide variety of doctrinal ideas, but they never have a Final Authority pure Bible.

This particular blunder was an offshoot of that movement, and was pioneered by Frederick Cornwalis Conybeare (1956-1924).

Apostolic believers should be warned when some of their leaders are fighting the Bible.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

We do not go by the Greek manuscripts because we are using quotations of the original Hebrew Matthew. Not an original.
From a 14th-century anti-Christian tract.

And you ignore dozens of blunders in the edition.
You simply cherry-pick one you like, because you do not understand apostolic Bible harmony.

Steven

[FlamingZword]

And you do not seem to understand the difference between a text, and a quotation, and a paraphrase.

The TEXT is all important. We do not follow Eusebius, we follow the Bible. You should do the same.

Yep you said the text is all important, however there is no surviving original text of the book of Matthew, all we have are copies of copies.

It is well known that of all the thousands of manuscripts encountered not a single one agrees with any other, there is always variations in all the manuscripts. There is no such thing as a perfect TEXT manuscript.

[FlamingZword]

Not an original.
From a 14th-century anti-Christian tract.

And you ignore dozens of blunders in the edition.
You simply cherry-pick one you like, because you do not understand apostolic Bible harmony.

Steven

Actually the Eusebian citation brings Apostolic bible harmony, for that text is in harmony with Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48 and others.

[Esaias]

Yep you said the text is all important, however there is no surviving original text of the book of Matthew, all we have are copies of copies.

It is well known that of all the thousands of manuscripts encountered not a single one agrees with any other, there is always variations in all the manuscripts. There is no such thing as a perfect TEXT manuscript.

And yet EVERY copy that has the verse in question, is in agreement on what it says. Therefore, the text can be determined. Your translation project however throws away the ENTIRE available manuscript evidence in favor of a QUOTATION by ONE GUY in the FOURTH CENTURY. Guess what, all we have are copies of copies OF HIS QUOTATION.

Like I said, you do not understand how Bible translation works. The "witnesses" and "support" you keep referring to are clear evidence you are in way over your head.

The sad thing is that publication of a Oneness Pentecostal "translation" that butchers the text like this just puts y'all in the same boat as the Watchtower Society with their New World Translation. Sad.

[Scott Pitta]

There are no textual variants to Mt. 28:19. Yes, there are plenty of variants in Matthew, as in the other books of the NT. But not in Mt. 28:19.

There is no manuscript that is free of variant readings. But not every sentence in every manuscript has errors or variations.

If you know of a Greek manuscript of Matthew 29:19 that has a textual variant, please document it here.

[FlamingZword]

Your translation project however throws away the ENTIRE available manuscript evidence in favor of a QUOTATION by ONE GUY in the FOURTH CENTURY.

This is incorrect it is not only a QUOTATION by ONE GUY.

I already shown you that there is more than one person citing Matthew in such manner, plus there is a whole lot more evidence that supports this text. So no I am not relying upon ONE Guy.

Plenty of evidence in the book "The original Matthew 28:19 Restored (https://www.amazon.com/Original-Matthew-28-Restored-Appendix/dp/1494490765)"

Annarikhus: “Go ye forth into all the world, and teach ye all the nations in My Name in every place.”
Aphraates: “Go forth [and] make disciples of all the peoples, and they shall believe in me”
Ephrem: “Go out into the whole world and proclaim my gospel to the whole of creation and baptize all the Gentiles.”
Thaddaeus: “And He sent us in His name to proclaim repentance and remission of sins to all the nations.”

[FlamingZword]

There are no textual variants to Mt. 28:19. Yes, there are plenty of variants in Matthew, as in the other books of the NT. But not in Mt. 28:19.

There is no manuscript that is free of variant readings. But not every sentence in every manuscript has errors or variations.

If you know of a Greek manuscript of Matthew 29:19 that has a textual variant, please document it here.

I repeat myself again, we are not going by the Greek text, for the original Matthew was written in Hebrew, so most likely the mistranslated verse was done when someone translated it from the original Hebrew to the Greek.

Yes there is plenty of evidence that the original Matthew was written in Hebrew.

[Scott Pitta]

There is no manuscript evidence of a Hebrew Matthew. There are zero early Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew. None.

Therefore, it is pure conjecture to say a sentence was mistranslated when there are no manuscripts to compare the translation to.

[FlamingZword]

There is no manuscript evidence of a Hebrew Matthew. There are zero early Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew. None.

Therefore, it is pure conjecture to say a sentence was mistranslated when there are no manuscripts to compare the translation to.

We have the testimony of over 16 highly reliable and educated ancient witnesses which affirmed that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, not only that but the internal evidence from the Gospel itself shows that it was originally a Hebrew work.

[Scott Pitta]

We do not assemble texts of NT literature based exclusively on the testimony of early church fathers. Translators translate NT manuscripts. There are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew that we now possess.

We do have manuscripts of NT literature in other languages. We do have early church father quotes. But they are not the same as NT manuscripts.

In an interest to cover new ideas, gather other quotes from the Hebrew Matthew and compare them to the Greek text of Matthew. Surely there are other quotes from the Hebrew Matthew in the early church fathers. Find them. List them here.

[Esaias]

...not only that but the internal evidence from the Gospel itself shows that it was originally a Hebrew work.

This is false. Matthew 1:23 is a quotation from the GREEK Isaiah, not the Hebrew Isaiah, showing the author of Matthew was using Greek. Also, that same verse INTERPRETS the meaning of Emmanuel, which only makes sense if it was written in Greek. A Hebrew text is not going to INTERPRET a Hebrew word for a Hebrew-reading audience.

Furthermore, the majority of the rest of the OT quotations in Matthew are taken from the GREEK OT, showing that Matthew was using a GREEK Bible, familiar with Greek, and therefore writing in Greek.

There is NO evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. The supposed allusions to a Hebrew original are irrelevant for two reasons:

1. The actual ancient claim is that Matthew wrote an account in Hebrew, NOT that the then-current Gospel according to Matthew was originally in Hebrew. In other words, a SEPARATE WORK.

2. No Hebrew original has ever been found. So EVEN IF Matthew's Gospel was originally in Hebrew, GOD HIMSELF CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE IT, and INSTEAD God CHOSE TO PRESERVE HIS GREEK GOSPEL. Therefore, we MUST use the Greek.

YOU are promoting that we abandon the Gospel that GOD PRESERVED and instead go with something y'all are MAKING UP AS YOU GO ALONG THAT HAS NO BASIS IN ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

We don't conform the Bible to our beliefs, we conform our beliefs to the Bible.

[Scott Pitta]

OT quotes in the NT are extremely interesting and equally complex. Some quotes are from the Hebrew, some are from the Greek. Some are neither.

If I recall, authors of NT literature are inconsistent in how they quote the OT in the NT.

I would need to review the theological literature before making any observations here. It has been a long time since I researched OT quotes in the NT.

[Esaias]

85% LXX, 10-12% MT, the rest unknown/paraphrased/unique.

[rdp]

This is false. Matthew 1:23 is a quotation from the GREEK Isaiah, not the Hebrew Isaiah, showing the author of Matthew was using Greek. Also, that same verse INTERPRETS the meaning of Emmanuel, which only makes sense if it was written in Greek. A Hebrew text is not going to INTERPRET a Hebrew word for a Hebrew-reading audience.

Furthermore, the majority of the rest of the OT quotations in Matthew are taken from the GREEK OT, showing that Matthew was using a GREEK Bible, familiar with Greek, and therefore writing in Greek.

There is NO evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. The supposed allusions to a Hebrew original are irrelevant for two reasons:

1. The actual ancient claim is that Matthew wrote an account in Hebrew, NOT that the then-current Gospel according to Matthew was originally in Hebrew. In other words, a SEPARATE WORK.

2. No Hebrew original has ever been found. So EVEN IF Matthew's Gospel was originally in Hebrew, GOD HIMSELF CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE IT, and INSTEAD God CHOSE TO PRESERVE HIS GREEK GOSPEL. Therefore, we MUST use the Greek.

YOU are promoting that we abandon the Gospel that GOD PRESERVED and instead go with something y'all are MAKING UP AS YOU GO ALONG THAT HAS NO BASIS IN ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

We don't conform the Bible to our beliefs, we conform our beliefs to the Bible.

:yourock :thumbsup

[FlamingZword]

This is false. Matthew 1:23 is a quotation from the GREEK Isaiah, not the Hebrew Isaiah, showing the author of Matthew was using Greek. Also, that same verse INTERPRETS the meaning of Emmanuel, which only makes sense if it was written in Greek. A Hebrew text is not going to INTERPRET a Hebrew word for a Hebrew-reading audience.

Furthermore, the majority of the rest of the OT quotations in Matthew are taken from the GREEK OT, showing that Matthew was using a GREEK Bible, familiar with Greek, and therefore writing in Greek.

There is NO evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. The supposed allusions to a Hebrew original are irrelevant for two reasons:

1. The actual ancient claim is that Matthew wrote an account in Hebrew, NOT that the then-current Gospel according to Matthew was originally in Hebrew. In other words, a SEPARATE WORK.

2. No Hebrew original has ever been found. So EVEN IF Matthew's Gospel was originally in Hebrew, GOD HIMSELF CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE IT, and INSTEAD God CHOSE TO PRESERVE HIS GREEK GOSPEL. Therefore, we MUST use the Greek.

YOU are promoting that we abandon the Gospel that GOD PRESERVED and instead go with something y'all are MAKING UP AS YOU GO ALONG THAT HAS NO BASIS IN ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

We don't conform the Bible to our beliefs, we conform our beliefs to the Bible.

David Brown writes, “It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord”

[Scott Pitta]

I would like to see more quotes from the Hebrew Matthew from the early church fathers. Surely there must be more than just one. For analysis purposes, how many Hebrew quotes are there from Matthew chapter 28 ? Are there any ?

How many early church father quotes from Matthew chapter 28 differ from the text we now have ? Are there any patterns or indicators they may have originated from a Hebrew text of Matthew ??

[Esaias]

David Brown writes, “It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord”

And? See, you're just playing games here, not actually engaging in real discussion.

[Esaias]

I would like to see more quotes from the Hebrew Matthew from the early church fathers.

I'd like to see one.

[FlamingZword]

I'd like to see one.

very few of the post-apostolic fathers knew Hebrew, so they would hardly quote something in Hebrew.

[Scott Pitta]

If they could refer to one variant reading from a Hebrew Matthew, they could refer or quote others.

If they could not read Hebrew at all, how would they know of the variant reading ?? How could they accurately quote from a manuscript they could not even read ??

Finding other variant readings from the same pericope would tell us more about the content of the Hebrew Matthew and how other phrases and words were translated.

[Steven Avery]

Actually the Eusebian citation brings Apostolic bible harmony, for that text is in harmony with Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48 and others. Not if you have an Apostolic belief that the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is Jesus.

Do you take issue with this simple harmony?
That is the harmony of the text that is in all the Greek, Latin and Syriac mss., plus various versions.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Not an original.
From a 14th-century anti-Christian tract.
And you ignore dozens of blunders in the edition. You simply cherry-pick one you like, because you do not understand apostolic Bible harmony. Just a reminder about the cherry-picking from the 14th century Shem-Tob Matthew.

Take one corruption, trumpet it, and ignore dozens of other corruptions that would cause you to rewrite the Gospel.

If they could refer to one variant reading from a Hebrew Matthew, they could refer or quote others. ... Finding other variant readings from the same pericope would tell us more about the content of the Hebrew Matthew and how other phrases and words were translated. The corruption of the Shem Tob was documented years back, when there was a lot of Hebrew Matthew brouhaha (the Munster and DuTillet editions were much closer to the pure Bible Matthew.) The Shem Tob is textually a total disaster, so the Matthew 28:19 pushers simply ignore the question.

In fact there is a second variant in ShemTob that has become popular, for totally different reasons, but again, the pushers, a different group, ignore the dozens of abject corruptions.

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

David Brown writes, “It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord”btw, another reminder that when Jerome referred to a Hebrew Matthew, it was simply a different Gospel than our canonical Gospel. Jerome described some of the stories in the Hebrew edition, which he saw in Caesarea (perhaps brought down from Syria.) And no, he did not say anything about Matthew 28:19.

The above from David Brown was written in the 1800s, and he considered the argument for a Hebrew Matthew original as of an "unsatisfactory character" and he has a special section explaining why the position was wrong.

Of course, an Aramaic Matthew would be quite different than a Hebrew Matthew, which is what Jerome saw.

the internal evidence from the Gospel itself shows that it was originally a Hebrew work. The internal translations, consistent in all Greek text-lines, is a solid evidence that the original was not in a semitic language, since the descriptions would not be in the original, and would not be added in by a translator.

You are welcome to present the specifics of this proposed "internal evidence".

Eusebius: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name”. (18 times exact citations), (100+ times allusions) "exact citations" is a deception, form you, not a claim of Eusebius. In about 18 of 23 he did use a shorthand usage, in about five he used the full expression. Many people in Apostolic circles do the same thing. The 100+ times allusions looks like simply a fabrication of somebody.

Annarikhus: “Go ye forth into all the world, and teach ye all the nations in My Name in every place.”
Aphraates: “Go forth [and] make disciples of all the peoples, and they shall believe in me”
Ephrem: “Go out into the whole world and proclaim my gospel to the whole of creation and baptize all the Gentiles.”
Thaddaeus: “And He sent us in His name to proclaim repentance and remission of sins to all the nations.” None of these offer an alternate baptizing phrase, like you claim should be the text. Clearly, there are many loose quotations over time, so picking out a few loose references means little.

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

Who is Thaddaeus? You are referring to a work called the Acts of Thaddaeus, thought to be written pretty late. (Although I am open to arguments that it reflects an earlier text.)

"And He sent us in His name to proclaim repentance and remission of sins to all the nations, that those who were baptized, having had the kingdom of the heavens preached to them, would rise up incorruptible at the end of this age; and He gave us power to expel demons, and heal every disease and every malady, and raise the dead."
https://books.google.com/books?id=6zgMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA559Your "scholarship" is such a mess that you omit the following from the same work:

And after the passion, and the resurrection, and the ascension, Thaddæus went to Abgarus; and having found him in health, he gave him an account of the incarnation of Christ, and baptized him, with all his house. And having instructed great multitudes, both of Hebrews and Greeks, Syrians and Armenians, he baptized them in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, having anointed them with the holy perfume; and he communicated to them of the undefiled mysteries of the sacred body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and delivered to them to keep and observe the law of Moses, and to give close heed to the things that had been said by the apostles in Jerusalem. For year by year they came together to the passover, and again he imparted to them the Holy Spirit. Thank you for showing us that you are not engaged in sincere and honest study or scholarship.

The bottom line is simple.
These corruption pushers do not have a pure Bible.

[FlamingZword]

"exact citations" is a deception, form you, not a claim of Eusebius. In about 18 of 23 he did use a shorthand usage, in about five he used the full expression. Many people in Apostolic circles do the same thing. The 100+ times allusions looks like simply a fabrication of somebody

This answer of yours tells me that you have never actually read Eusebius. Anyone who has fully read all of his works will disagree with you.

[FlamingZword]

Eusebius citations

Demonstratio Evangelica (The Proof of the Gospel) Book 3
1. 3:6 With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." And He joined the effect to His Word;

2. 3:7 Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: "Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations." "But how," the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master,...But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph "In MY NAME."

3. 3:7 For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of "In My Name." And the power of His Name being so great, that the apostle says: "God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,"

4. 3:7 He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name." He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: "For this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations."
These words were said in a corner of the earth then, and only those present heard it. How, I ask, did they credit them, unless from other divine works that He had done they had experienced the truth in His words? Not one of them disobeyed His command: but in obedience to His Will according to their orders they began to make disciples of every race of men, going from their own country to all races, and in a short time it was possible to see His words realized.

5. 3:7 I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man's, and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them: "Make disciples of all the nations in My Name."…You yourself will recognize what power their word has had, for the Book of the Acts agrees with their having these powers, and gives consistent evidence, where these men are reported by their power of working miracles by the Name of Jesus to have astonished the spectators present.

Demonstratio Evangelica (The Proof of the Gospel) Book 9
6. 9:11 And He says to them, "The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bearing the fruits of it." And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in My Name.''

Theophania Book 4
7. 4:16 Our Saviour said to them therefore, after His resurrection, "Go ye and make Disciples of all nations in My Name,"

Theophania Book 5
8. 5:17 But, if one so dared; still he brought not the matter to effect. He (the Saviour) said in one word and enouncement to His Disciples, "Go and make disciples of all nations in My Name, and teach ye them every thing that I have commanded you."

9. 5:46 He again put forth the word of God in the precept, which He gave to these His powerless Disciples, (viz.) "Go ye and make Disciples of all nations!" It is likely too, His Disciples would thus address their Lord, by way of answer: How can we do this ?…And, What power have we upon which to trust, that we shall succeed in this enterprise? These things therefore, the Disciples of our Saviour would either have thought, or said. But He who was their Lord solved, by one additional word, the aggregate of the things of which they doubted, (and) pledged them by saying, “Ye shall conquer in My Name.”

10. 5:46 For it was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make Disciples of all nations; but with this excellent addition which He delivered, (viz): "In My Name." Since it was by the power of His Name that all this came to pass; as the Apostle has said, "God has given Him a name, which is superior to every name: that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow which is in heaven, and which is in earth, and which is beneath the earth."

11. 5:49 I am again compelled to recur to the question of (its) cause, and to confess, that they (the Disciples) could not otherwise have undertaken this enterprise, than by a Divine power which exceeds that of man, and by the assistance of Him who said to them, "Go, and make Disciples of all nations in My Name."

Church History Book 3
12. 5:2 But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My Name.”

The Oration of Eusebius in Praise of Emperor Constantine Ch. 16
13. 16:8 Surely none save our only Saviour has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name.” He it was who gave the distinct assurance, that his gospel must be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations, and immediately verified his word: for within a little time the world itself was filled with his doctrine.

Commentary on the Psalms (from Bernard H. Cuneo; The Lord's Command to Baptize, An Historico-critical investigation with special reference to the works of Eusebius of Caesarea).
14. Psalms 65:5-6 "Hence we should rejoice in him, who by his power endureth forever. We should understand these words of that saying of Christ: 'All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going make disciples of all the nations in My Name.'"

15. Psalms 67:34 "That Christ's voice was endowed with power is evident from his, deeds; for when he said to his disciples: 'Come, follow me, and I shall make you fishers of men," he actually fulfilled this promise by his power; and again when he commanded them saying: 'Going make disciples of all the nations in My Name,' he manifested his power in very deed."

16. Psalms 76:20 "From the preceding verse we learn that the earth shook and trembled. This was realized when Christ entered Jerusalem, and the entire city was in consternation; also when the nations of the world trembled upon hearing the words of the Gospel from the lips of the Apostles. How should we understand the prophet when he says that Christ's way is in the sea, and his paths in many waters, and his footsteps will not be known? This passage receives light from his promise to his disciples: 'Going make disciples of all nations in My Name,' and, 'Behold I am with you all days even to the end of the world.' For throughout the entire world, invisibly present to his disciples, he traveled on the sea of life, and in the many waters of the nations. This he accomplished by his invisible and hidden power."

Commentary on Isaiah- (from Bernard H. Cuneo, The Lord's Command to Baptize, An Historico-critical investigation with special reference to the works of Eusebius of Caesarea).
17. Isaiah 18:2 "This command seems to be given to the disciples of our Savior. Since they are messengers of good tidings, they are called messengers, and light ones, to distinguish them from the apostles of the Jews. Wherefore the prophet addresses these messengers of good tidings thus: You disciples of Christ, go as the Savior himself has commanded you; 'Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,' and 'Going make disciples of all the nations in My Name.'"

18. Isaiah 34:16 "For he who said to them, 'make disciples of all the nations in My Name,' also forbad them to establish churches in one and the same place."

[Scott Pitta]

"In my name" is not a baptismal phrase used in any of the great commission accounts.

"In the name" is used by Matthew.

"In my name" they shall cast out demons. (Mark 16)

Water baptism is not mentioned by Luke.

So when the quote "in my name" is mentioned, what passage is being referred to ??

Unless Matthew is mentioned by name, how do we know "in my name" is a specific quote from Matthew ???

[FlamingZword]

"In my name" is not a baptismal phrase used in any of the great commission accounts.

"In the name" is used by Matthew.

"In my name" they shall cast out demons. (Mark 16)

Water baptism is not mentioned by Luke.

So when the quote "in my name" is mentioned, what passage is being referred to ??

Unless Matthew is mentioned by name, how do we know "in my name" is a specific quote from Matthew ???

actually in my name is in the great commission accounts.
That is how I got the revelation that Eusebius was correct.

Look at it
Mark 16: 16-17 He that believeth and is baptized...In my name
Luke 24:47 ERV: “You must start from Jerusalem and tell this message in my name to the people of all nations.”
John 20:31 (AB) But these things are also written that you may believe that Yeshua is The Messiah, the Son of God, and when you believe, you shall have eternal life in his name.

Mrk 16:17 (Great Commission)...my name
Lke 24:47 (Great Commission)…his name (my name)
Jhn 20:31 (Great Commission)…his name

Water baptism is not mentioned by Luke?
of course he did, it was Luke who wrote the book of Acts. Acts is a continuation of the gospel of Luke.

[Scott Pitta]

Let me rephrase my idea.

How does one distinguish one great commission account from another ? Is the early church father quote refer to the great commission account given in Matthew, Mark or Luke ? How does one prove the quote is from Matthew and not from Mark ?? Did the early church fathers label the source of their quotes as being from Mark or Luke or Matthew ??

[Scott Pitta]

I am focusing on the wording of the great commission, not the totality of their literary works.

Luke does not specifically mention baptism in his great commission account in Luke or in Acts chapter one.

[Scott Pitta]

If the early church fathers are quoting Mark and we think they are quoting Matthew, the problem is not textual, but one of misinterpretation.

[1ofthechosen]

Of all the stuff that could be written about, do we really need to go to the Bible and change something that already is solidified by our position anyway?

It seems like a lot of wasted time is going Into this anyway when there is something productive that could be going on. I am a outsider looking in, but most of this is building a house on hearsay and conjecture. Eusebius didn't write anything in our Bible neither did any of these sources you have stated. Pursuing this is going to make your name.synonymous with heretics, and false prophet's. Not that I'm saying you are, but this work will be controversial at best. Maybe that's what your going for. But no one wants to be the Walter Martinz or Jimmy Swaggart of the Apostolic movement. And only a small amount of people are going to even pay attention to this stuff. And if they do they will proceed with caution. Most won't even take it seriously. So I want to ask for what? What will this even get accomplished even if everyone accepted it as truth? Nothing. Matthew 28:19 already supports what we believe because we know the singular Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus.

I would say this is all a bad move on your part. But hey its a free country and you have the right to do whatever you want. But you are going to be met with problems, and hit with labels that you won't be able to shake. That will ruin your name forever. And in the end it will be pointless, because Matthew 28:19 wasn't needed to establish our position. It already is firmly established without this.

If all this is to establish that Trinitarians even at their beginning are untruthful with their scholarship thats already established. We already know it. Trinitarians even can see it to some extent but deny the facts, because it faces them with a decision to leave their traditions behind. I don't see the purpose of any of this, the ends here just don't justify the means, but this is just my honest opinion. God Bless!

[Steven Avery]

Eusebius citationsPartial.
You omitted his full citations.

You also omitted the many earlier church writers with the full phrase.

Why?
Simply because you are not doing scholarship.

[Steven Avery]

This answer of yours tells me that you have never actually read Eusebius. Anyone who has fully read all of his works will disagree with you.You claimed 100+ allusions.
Simply a fabrication.

And I do not think you know what the word “allusion” means in textual referencing.

[FlamingZword]

Let me rephrase my idea.

How does one distinguish one great commission account from another ? Is the early church father quote refer to the great commission account given in Matthew, Mark or Luke ? How does one prove the quote is from Matthew and not from Mark ?? Did the early church fathers label the source of their quotes as being from Mark or Luke or Matthew ??

Jesus only gave one great commission to his apostles, it is recorded differently in the gospels, but there was only one great commission. one must take the accounts as simply different ways of telling the same great commission.

[FlamingZword]

You claimed 100+ allusions.
Simply a fabrication.

And I do not think you know what the word “allusion” means in textual referencing.

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.

If you want to believe otherwise be my guest.

[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 ??

[Esaias]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/textualcriticism/conversations/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/anf09.xvi.ii.v.xx.html?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=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/textualcriticism/conversations/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]

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.

[FlamingZword]

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

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

I've learned to never trust your scholarship.

Steven

Most of the information James Snapp lists has been already debunked and shown to be erroneous.

I also have learned to never trust your scholarship. :D

[Esaias]

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.

I take it you don't read Braille, either?

[Steven Avery]

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. So, really the bottom line is that you can not trust and believe with conviction one verse in your Bible.

After all, anything might have been changed in one of the early copies.

[Steven Avery]

Most of the information James Snapp lists has been already debunked and shown to be erroneous. Total nonsense.
The quotes are valid.

You made a couple of silly comments.

e.g. you attacked Cyprian.
Which is absurd, because he quotes the Bible accurately and copiously.

Yet you laud the Middle Ages anti-missionary unbeliever Shem Tob.

Steven

[FlamingZword]

So, really the bottom line is that you can not trust and believe with conviction one verse in your Bible.

After all, anything might have been changed in one of the early copies.

Here are statements from two catholic teachers.
Rev. Prof. Dr hab. Szymon Drzyżdżyk
Dr. Aleksandra Brzemia-Bonarek (Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow)

From the article "From Baptism in the Name of Jesus to Baptism in the Name of the Holy Trinity"

p. 167:
It must be assumed that the trinitarian formula of baptism is indeed an interpolation of this passage of the Gospel. So, those scholars who say that the closest to historical truth is the literal interpretation of the words "baptism in the name of (Lord) Jesus" in the book of Acts have been right. For centuries, the tradition conveyed to one another was convinced of the fact that the apostles did indeed baptize in the name of Jesus.

p. 168
The liturgical practice of the Church and its close, even symbiotic relationship with the early Christian doctrine could first result in a gloss (a written note in the margin prescribed in this form) and then the recording of that gloss. The next step was to re-edit the formula of baptism contained in the missionary mandate of Christ. The question remains how early this treatment was.

p. 170
However, if we accept a border date, we can say that the impulse for universal application of the formula of the trinitarian baptism was the Council of Nicaea (in 325). From the beginning, the text of the baptismal formula was to present as much as possible of the faith and its content. The trinitarian invocation in the baptismal formula fulfilled this role, especially in view of the Arian controversies intensified in the Fourth and last century. Therefore, the second half of the fourth century should be regarded as a time of decline in the co-existence of Christocentric and Trinitarian baptismal formulas and their recognition as equivalent.

These people are catholic experts and teachers, so they themselves admit the trinitarian phrase is an interpolation. Yet you insist it is not.

[Steven Avery]

Here are statements from two catholic teachers. This cherry-picked Catholic "scholarship" is what you go to when you can not deal with the ECW quotes and the manuscript evidences.

Have the Catholics mangled any of their various versions by removing the traditional text?

[Scott Pitta]

Statements by theologians is impressive.

But translators focus on actual manuscripts of the literature of the NT.

There are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew with the variant ending some insist should be there.

[FlamingZword]

Total nonsense.
The quotes are valid.

You made a couple of silly comments.

e.g. you attacked Cyprian.
Which is absurd, because he quotes the Bible accurately and copiously.

Yet you laud the Middle Ages anti-missionary unbeliever Shem Tob.

Steven

about Cyprian, here is some information on him.

Pope Stephen called Cyprian the bishop of Carthage “a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker” and excommunicated him for his opposition to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, he also disfellowship Firmilian bishop of Caesarea for he also refused to accept baptism in Jesus’ name as valid. English Historical Review (1910) Newly discovered letters of Dionysius of Alexandria to the Popes Stephen and Xystus.


Note: Both Popes Stephen and Xystus accepted baptism in the name of Jesus as valid. The Golden Legend: The Life of Saint Calixtus (Xystus) has the following word: “Baptize me in the name of Jesu Christ, which hath taken me by the hand and lifted me up. Then came Calixtus and baptized her and her husband”.

Cyprian: The bishop of Carthage, in 256 AD in his Epistles 72 and 73 mentions that Marcion baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. He complained that Pope Stephen accepted heretics without requiring them to be rebaptized, “even those that came from him (Marcion) did not need to be baptized, because they seemed to have been already baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” And also mentions that Patripassians, Anthropians, Valentinians, Apelletians, Ophites, and other “heretics” baptized in similar manner. He repeats the charge in his epistle 73 “they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ”, and appears to indicate that not only Marcion baptized in the name of Jesus but also Valentinus, Apelles and others did so. The arguments between him and Pope Stephen became so bitter and antagonistic that he was excommunicated.
The writings of Cyprian clearly confirm that baptism in the name of Jesus was the oldest and most common baptism and that the traditional baptism was the new innovation.

Because Cyprian considered baptism in the name of Jesus to be an age old error, he was a bitter enemy of baptism in the name of Jesus and often mentions baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as a popular “heresy” that needed to be destroyed. In much anger Cyprian mentions that there were thousands of heretics who ‘baptized in the name of Christ alone’. And we do know that Cyprian combated this shorter formula that was used in certain quarters, in an attempt to stamp it out. The Byzantine Fathers
of the Fifth Century (1933) by Historian and theologian Georges Florovsky.
In September 256 AD Cyprian held the third synod in Carthage which rejected baptism in the name of Christ as valid. This caused the relations of the Roman and African Churches to become severely strained. A library of the Fathers: The Epistles of Saint Cyprian (1868), Cyprian and Roman Carthage (2010) by Professor of early Christianity Allen Brent. Doctor of Theology Thomas Kelly Cheyne, Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), Cyprian: His Life, His Times, His Work (1897) by Archbishop of Canterbury Edward White Benson.

The letters of St. Cyprian were published in Rome in 1471, quite a long time from the actual events, hardly a reliable document at all. (Almost 1,200 years of distance from the 3rd century). Modified text, hmm sounds familiar. Charges of forgeries in Cyprian’s works are quite abundant. Cyprian: His Life, His Times, His Work (1897) by Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury.

[FlamingZword]

Have the Catholics mangled any of their various versions by removing the traditional text?

The doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of the Catholic church, they would never think of removing that text no matter how much evidence there is that it is an interpolation. Without this text in Matthew the whole trinity doctrine falls apart.

[FlamingZword]

Statements by theologians is impressive.

But translators focus on actual manuscripts of the literature of the NT.

There are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew with the variant ending some insist should be there.

We are not worried about no Greek manuscripts of Matthew with the variant ending.

We look at the overall evidence.
and preponderance of evidence points to it being mistranslated from the Hebrew to the Greek, so if the first Greek was mistranslated all the texts following the Greek would also be mistranslated.

[Scott Pitta]

What Hebrew manuscripts of Mathew ?? There are none from the first few centuries. We cannot translate from Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew that do not exist.

Whatever conclusions we may have about the history of the text of Matthew must be based on actual manuscript evidence. Since we have no early Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew and all the manuscripts of Matthew lack any textual variants of Mt. 28:19, there are no manuscripts to support a change to the text.

Furthermore, the quotes from the early church fathers are inconsistent. If they all quoted Mt. 28:19 exactly the same way, we could argue for a strong variant reading. But if the actual quotes have a wide range of changes the entire notion is suspect.

[FlamingZword]

Have the Catholics mangled any of their various versions by removing the traditional text?

Yes they have, here is the proof they have removed the comma johanneum

Catholic Bibles
The New Jerusalem Bible
1 John 5:7-8
7 So there are three witnesses,
8 the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.

The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)
1 John 5:7-8
7 So there are three that testify,
8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.

The NOVA VULGATA BIBLIORUM SACRORUM EDITIO the latest official Vulgate, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1998 also no longer has the comma Johanneum.

[Evang.Benincasa]

We have the testimony of over 16 highly reliable and educated ancient witnesses which affirmed that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, not only that but the internal evidence from the Gospel itself shows that it was originally a Hebrew work.

Translate Matthew 16:18 into Hebrew, or Aramaic, and tell me how that works?

Give us the Hebrew name for Phillip.

Give us the Hebrew name for Nicodemus and it still have the same same meaning.

So I guess a Camel wasn't supposed to go through an eye of needle? But just a rope?

Why are Hebrew words translated from Greek to Aramaic definitions?

Why was the Septuagint largely used by the New Testament writers?

Why does the LXX most often agree with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)?

The New Testament quotes from the LXX, but here is the question all of the readers of this thread need to ask yourselves. If the LXX was added into these books of the New Testament, by Greek scribes? Then the problem is way greater than you casually believe. Because if it was originally penned in some other language other than Greek, your snowball is just about ready to roll downward. Only to end up in a conclusion of mess.

There was not one book of your New Testament originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Not a one.

Quoting from old dusty historians is like going to AFF and using old Sean posts for documented proof.

[Steven Avery]

Yes they have, here is the proof they have removed the comma johanneum Yes, those were manglings. However, my question was about the Mark ending.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of the Catholic church, they would never think of removing that text no matter how much evidence there is that it is an interpolation. Without this text in Matthew the whole trinity doctrine falls apart. You are contradicting yourself. You just said they removed the heavenly witnesses.

[Steven Avery]

We have the testimony of over 16 highly reliable and educated ancient witnesses which affirmed that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew You keep ignoring the fact that Jerome shows us that the Hebrew Matthew is a different text than our canonical Gospel of Matthew.

the internal evidence from the Gospel itself shows that it was originally a Hebrew work. This is so wrong that it is a laugher. For one thing, the internal translations only make sense if the work was originally written in Greek (or some other non-semitic language.)

Nonetheless, I would be happy to look over any supposed internal evidences. Or even specific references to people making this argument.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

In any writing below, ignore the anachronistic term "Pope" for Stephen or Xystus, they were bishops of Rome. There is no real use of the title pope till well over a century later.

Pope Stephen called Cyprian the bishop of Carthage “a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker” and excommunicated him for his opposition to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, he also disfellowship Firmilian bishop of Caesarea for he also refused to accept baptism in Jesus’ name as valid. English Historical Review (1910) Newly discovered letters of Dionysius of Alexandria to the Popes Stephen and Xystus. ...Note: Both Popes Stephen and Xystus accepted baptism in the name of Jesus as valid. The Golden Legend: The Life of Saint Calixtus (Xystus) has the following word: “Baptize me in the name of Jesu Christ, which hath taken me by the hand and lifted me up. Then came Calixtus and baptized her and her husband”. Nothing you share is really accurate. The issue was the rebaptizing of those considered heretics, like Marcion who had taken a scissors to his New Testament, not a Jesus name baptism dispute per se.

As an example, I will give you an extract from the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus that you reference above:

Dionysius of Alexandria, Newly discovered letters to the Popes Stephen and Xystus,
F.C. CONYBEARE, English Historical Review 25 (1910) pp. 111-114
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/dionysius_alexandria_letters.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=0XkQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA111 (quote on p. 113)

II. Of the same from the first letter to Xystus, chief bishop of Rome.

Inasmuch as you have written thus, setting forth the pious legislation, which we continually read and now have in remembrance—namely that it shall suffice only to lay hands on those who shall have made profession in baptism, whether in pretence or in truth,14 of God Almighty and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit; but those over whom there has not been invoked the name either of Father or of Son or of the Holy Spirit, these we must baptise, but not rebaptise. This is the sure and immovable teaching and tradition, begun by our Lord after his resurrection from the dead, when he gave his apostles the command 15 : Go ye, make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This then was preserved and fulfilled by his successors, the blessed apostles, and by all the bishops prior to ourselves who have died in the holy church and shared in its life 16; and it has lasted down to us, because it is firmer than the whole world. For, he said, heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.17 |114 And I really like to learn more about these disputes, but again, nothing from you is trustworthy. To look at the bright side, sometimes you give a lead to interesting material.

Along with Marcion, Cyprian also mentions Valentinus and Apelles in Epistle 73

The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix (1896)
https://books.google.com/books?id=aDcMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA388

Here is an example of Cyprian discussing the doctrines of Apelles

The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix (1896)
https://books.google.com/books?id=aDcMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA115

And (he asserts that Jesus) was not bom of a virgin, and that when he did appear he was not devoid of flesh. (He maintains.) however, that (Christ) formed his body by taking portions of it from the sub-stance of the universe: that is, hot and cold, and moist and dry. And (he says that Christ), on receiving in this body cosmical powers, lived for the time he did in (this) world. Absolutely no sense or indication that this heretic baptized in Jesus name. And definitely not into the Christian faith. Stephen seemed to think that such baptisms should be considered valid, but Cyprian's stance that any baptism of a gnostic and heretical group is to be considered of no positive effect makes much more sense.

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

You also cherry-picked and thus mangled what is in the 1200s Golden Legend. However, the references above are far more important at this time. Es suficiente.

Steven

[FlamingZword]

Yes, those were manglings. However, my question was about the Mark ending.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said they removed the heavenly witnesses.

They removed the heavenly witnesses because they still have Matthew 28:19 as their back up.

Before the trinity doctrine rested upon those two scriptures.
so now the whole trinity rests upon Matthew 28:19, remove it and there is no more trinity.

[FlamingZword]

You keep ignoring the fact that Jerome shows us that the Hebrew Matthew is a different text than our canonical Gospel of Matthew.

This is so wrong that it is a laugher. For one thing, the internal translations only make sense if the work was originally written in Greek (or some other non-semitic language.)

Nonetheless, I would be happy to look over any supposed internal evidences. Or even specific references to people making this argument.

Steven

Jerome tells us that the Hebrew Matthew was kept at the library of Cesarea, which was the same library that Eusebius owned.

There have been plenty of scholars who insist that it is indeed a translation.

1) The gospel was to be first to the Jew (Romans 1:16); the first believers were Jews from Galilee and the land of Israel (Acts 2:5); later on when Greek Jews came into the church it became necessary to create deacons. (Acts 6:1), if the gospel of a Jewish teacher would be to the Jews would it not make sense that the gospel would be first given in the Jewish language and a gospel written to a Jewish audience would also be written in the Jewish language?

Look at the text of Matthew 27:9
The Greek says “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet”
The Hebrew says “Then was fulfilled the word of Zechariah the prophet”,
which is actually correct according to Zechariah 11:12 “So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver”.
Look at the text in Matthew 16:16
The Greek has “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The Hebrew has “You are the Messiah, that is, Kristo, the Son of the living God.” which is more revealing.
These are just a couple of examples of the differences between the Greek and the Hebrew. There are some other details which are different in Hebrew text than in the Greek text, which is an obvious indication that the Greek was a translation.

[FlamingZword]

And I really like to learn more about these disputes, but again, nothing from you is trustworthy.
Steven

You really do not want to learn more about anything from me, you have already passed judgement upon me "Nothing from you is trustworthy."
goodbye, have a nice life. I will waste no more time upon you.

[Scott Pitta]

The gospel was first preached to the Jews. But this fact has nothing to do with which language a book of the NT was written in.

You compared the Greek of Mt. 27:9 with the Hebrew. Exactly what Hebrew text are you referring to ??

[Steven Avery]

Look at the text of Matthew 27:9
The Greek says “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet”
The Hebrew says “Then was fulfilled the word of Zechariah the prophet”,
which is actually correct according to Zechariah 11:12 “So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver”.
Look at the text in Matthew 16:16
The Greek has “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
The Hebrew has “You are the Messiah, that is, Kristo, the Son of the living God.” which is more revealing.
These are just a couple of examples of the differences between the Greek and the Hebrew. There are some other details which are different in Hebrew text than in the Greek text, which is an obvious indication that the Greek was a translation. Putting aside that you do not understand textual transmission, and working with the middle ages anti-Christian Matthew:

The Hebrew you are quoting has for Matthew 28:19:

Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever Is that your what you will put in your versions?
The Hebrew Matthew with no reference at all to baptism?

Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (1995)
https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEBdVXg3AC&pg=PA194

Matthew 28:19 (AV)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:

[Steven Avery]

The gospel was first preached to the Jews. But this fact has nothing to do with which language a book of the NT was written in.
You compared the Greek of Mt. 27:9 with the Hebrew. Exactly what Hebrew text are you referring to ??Matthew 27:9 (AV)
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
And they took the thirty pieces of silver,
the price of him that was valued,
whom they of the children of Israel did value;

And I have a bit about this verse here:

Matthew 27:9 - fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?980-Matthew-27-9-fulfilled-that-which-was-spoken-by-Jeremy-the-prophet

Maurice Robinson discussed this in one paper, emphasizing that very few scribes changed the text, despite it being an apparently "difficult" reading. The middle ages Hebrew was one of the versions that smoothed the text.

See the url in the post above for the George Howard book (can not show the actual Matthew 27:9 page in Preview mode) and also:
http://www.onediscipletoanother.org/id6.html

[Steven Avery]

you have already passed judgement upon me "Nothing from you is trustworthy." This is in the context of your Matthew 28:19 attempts at scholarship.

Nonetheless, I do enjoy following the actual leads you give. Today I discovered some interesting connections between the Shem Tob and the Sinaiticus manuscript (which was actually written in the 1800s.)

[Esaias]

Matthew 27:9 (AV)
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
And they took the thirty pieces of silver,
the price of him that was valued,
whom they of the children of Israel did value;

And I have a bit about this verse here:

Matthew 27:9 - fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?980-Matthew-27-9-fulfilled-that-which-was-spoken-by-Jeremy-the-prophet

Maurice Robinson discussed this in one paper, emphasizing that very few scribes changed the text, despite it being an apparently "difficult" reading. The middle ages Hebrew was one of the versions that smoothed the text.

See the url in the post above for the George Howard book (can not show the actual Matthew 27:9 page in Preview mode) and also:
http://www.onediscipletoanother.org/id6.html

The thread on your forum was very informative. Thanks! :thumbsup

[Steven Avery]

The thread on your forum was very informative. Thanks! :thumbsupyw.

And I have a thread with the ECW Ante-Nicene references to Matthew 28:19. These are from writers before Eusebius. Note that I just added Dionysius of Alexander, which came out of researching a post here.

Matthew 28:19 -baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2044408955650983/

And I do plan on adding more on that page.

[FlamingZword]

Eusebius quotes the Church Father Dionysius of Alexandria (Hist. Eccl., Bk. 4. 23), who reports that his own epistles had been tampered with: “When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts.”

[FlamingZword]

The Golden Legend: The Life of Saint Calixtus has the following word: “Baptize me in the name of Jesu Christ, which hath taken me by the hand and lifted me up. Then came Calixtus and baptized her and her husband”.

[FlamingZword]

The Golden Legend, The Life of Saint Laurence in another story has a similar passage: “Then Saint Laurence took water and said to him: All things in confession be washed. And when he had diligently informed him in the articles of the faith, and he confessed that he believed all, he shed water on his head, and baptized him in the name of Jesu Christ.”

[FlamingZword]

The Didache mentions in one passage baptism in the name of the Lord. “Now no one should either eat or drink from your thanksgiving meal, but those who have been baptized into the Lord's name.” (εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου) (9:5) Aaron Milavec says: “Finally, as treated in an earlier chapter, baptism "in the name of the Lord" appears to be an earlier designation that predated the trinity of names in Did. 7:1 and 7:3.” The Didache (2003) by Professor Aaron Milavec p. 378.

[FlamingZword]

Irenaeus of Lyons in his book 3, writes “Peter says to them, "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Thus the apostles did not preach another God, or another Fullness; nor, that the Christ who suffered and rose again was one, while he who flew off on high was another, and remained impossible; but that there was one and the same God the Father, and Christ Jesus who rose from the dead…that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, into whom he did also command them to be baptized for the remission of sins”

[FlamingZword]

In fragments of Irenaeus of Lyons it is written “It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord”

[FlamingZword]

Irenaeus, Demonstrations 97 in J. Armitage
“By the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ...and wheresover any of those who believe on him shall invoke and call upon him and do his will. He is near and present, fulfilling the request of those who with pure hearts call upon Him. whereby receiving salvation”

[FlamingZword]

The Martyrdom of the Holy and Glorious Apostle Bartholomew has the following passage; “and having baptized all of you who are in it in the baptism of the Lord, and sanctified you, I will save all.”

[FlamingZword]

The fictitious Gnostic Gospel of Judas carbon dated to 280 AD has the phrase “my name” 7 times and it says: “Judas said to Jesus, “Look, what will those who have been baptized in your name do? Jesus said, “Truly I say [to you], this baptism [3 words missing] my name”

[FlamingZword]

The fictitious Acts of Peter has Peter baptizing a man named Theon in the triune phrase, this baptismal account sounds fishy for it is well known that Peter baptized in the name of Jesus, but what makes it clear it is fake is that in the prior passage Theon asks to be “baptize with the seal of the Lord” and in the next passages the baptism is claimed to have been done in the name of Jesu Christ. “God had accounted Theon worthy of his name…it is thou that hast appeared unto us, O God Jesu Christ, and in thy name hath this man now been washed and sealed with thy holy seal.”

[FlamingZword]

The fictitious works called The Acts of John (XXI) has the following text “and he ordained them a fast of a week, and when it was fulfilled he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”

[Steven Avery]

The fictitious works called The Acts of John (XXI) has the following text “and he ordained them a fast of a week, and when it was fulfilled he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”Incomplete doctored quotes like this make you look foolish and totally untrustworthy in scholarship.

The Apocryphal New Testament
Montague Rhode James (1862-1936)
https://archive.org/details/JAMESApocryphalNewTestament1924/page/n289

Acts of John

... and he ordained them a fast of a week, and when it was fulfilled he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and his Almighty Father, and the Holy Ghost the illuminator.

This could be added to my list of Ante-Nicene references, although as a gnostic quirky work it is marginal. While Matthew is not mentioned, they likely misunderstood Matthew 28:19, as is commonly done today.

[Steven Avery]

We now have two more superb references from before Eusebius showing the words from Matthew.
Note that they may well have been misinterpreting Matthew 28:19.

Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: The English translations
edited by William Wright
https://books.google.com/books?id=iUQYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA258

Acts of Thomas

And Judas went up (and) stood over it, and baptized Mygdonia in the name of the Father and the Son and the Spirit of holiness.

The Apocrypal New Testament
By Montague Rhode James
https://books.google.com/books?id=toJaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA308

Acts of Peter

Now when there was a calm upon the ship in Hadria (the Adriatic), Theon showed it to Peter, saying unto him: If thou wilt account me worthy, whom thou mayest baptize with the seal of the Lord, thou hast an opportunity. For all that were in the ship had fallen asleep, being drunken. And Peter went down by a rope and baptized Theon in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: and he came up out of the water rejoicing with great joy, and Peter also was glad because God had accounted Theon worthy of his name. And it came to pass when Theon was baptized, there appeared in the same place\ a youth shining and beautiful, saying unto them: Peace be unto you. And immediately Peter and Theon went up and entered into the cabin; and Peter took bread and gave thanks unto the Lord which had accounted him worthy of his holy ministry, and for that the youth had appeared unto them, saying: Peace be unto you. And he said: Thou best and alone holy one, it is thou that hast appeared unto us, O God Jesu Christ, and in thy name hath this man now been washed and sealed with thy holy seal. Therefore in thy name do I impart unto him thine eucharist, that he may be thy perfect servant without blame for ever.

[Steven Avery]

The Golden Legend: The Life of Saint Calixtus has the following word: “Baptize me in the name of Jesu Christ, which hath taken me by the hand and lifted me up. Then came Calixtus and baptized her and her husband”. Without any mention of Matthew.

Another section has.

And anon, as they had so done, the angels took her up, and Christ descended, and baptized her in the sea, saying: I baptize thee in the name of God my father, and in me Jesu Christ his son, and in the Holy Ghost, and committed her to Michael the archangel, which led her to the land.
https://books.google.com/books?id=H-sOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA95

[Steven Avery]

In fragments of Irenaeus of Lyons it is written “It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord”
Irenaeus, Demonstrations 97 in J. Armitage
“By the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ...and wheresover any of those who believe on him shall invoke and call upon him and do his will. He is near and present, fulfilling the request of those who with pure hearts call upon Him. whereby receiving salvation” All of which fits perfectly with Irenaeus quoting from Matthew 28:19:

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

IRENAEUS [a.d. 120-202.],

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III
https://books.google.com/books?id=J8U7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA334

Chapter XVII.-The Apostles Teach that It Was Neither Christ Nor the Saviour,
But the Holy Spirit, Who Did Descend Upon Jesus. The Reason for This Descent.

That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares,
"For it is not ye that speak,
but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God,
He said to them,
Go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

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

[FlamingZword]

Here is an account from The Antiquities of the Christian Church (1841) p. 467 translated by Lyman Coleman “Thaddeus, one of the seventy, to Edessa, who healed the king of an incurable disease under which he had been suffering for seven years, and afterwards, baptized him in the name of Christ.”

[FlamingZword]

In the Syriac version of the Apocryphal New Testament The Acts of Thomas, 27, the apostle, being about to baptize Gundaphorus the king of India with his brother Gad, invokes the holy name of the Christ, and among other invocations says (according to the best Greek text): Note by Professor F. C. Burkitt, D.D.
Then later we read “And Mygdonia said: Give me the seal [baptism] of Jesus Christ”, “we invoke upon thee the name of [thy?] Jesus. And he said: Let the powers of blessing come, and be established in this bread, that all the souls which partake of it may be washed from their sins.”, “whereupon we invoke thine holy name.”, “In thy name, O Jesu Christ, let it be unto these souls for remission of sins and for turning back of the adversary and for salvation of their souls.”

[FlamingZword]

The Acts of Peter and Paul has the following text “some of those that had repented out of the nations and that had been baptized at the preaching of Peter…but we positively believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, into whom we have been baptized, that we have become worthy also of your teaching.”

[Steven Avery]

Here is an account from The Antiquities of the Christian Church (1841) p. 467 translated by Lyman Coleman “Thaddeus, one of the seventy, to Edessa, who healed the king of an incurable disease under which he had been suffering for seven years, and afterwards, baptized him in the name of Christ.”Wrong again. That is the summary and commentary of Lyman Coleman, it is not a translation of the Armenian text.

Ancient Christianity exemplified in the ... life of the primitive Christians (1852 editon)
Lyman Coleman
https://books.google.com/books?id=tOUCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA556

You would have to find the actual text of "Moses Chorenensis, the Armenian historian."

Movses Khorenatsi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movses_Khorenatsi

And if it is the words of Moses Chorenensis, it would not be evidence of the Matthew text.
Simply evidence of how they baptized, as do Apostolics today.

Here is a good article by Lyman Coleman.

Eusebius as an Historian (1858)
Lyman Coleman
https://books.google.com/books?id=z00XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA78
Lyman Coleman

[Steven Avery]

In the Syriac version of the Apocryphal New Testament The Acts of Thomas, 27, the apostle, being about to baptize Gundaphorus the king of India with his brother Gad, invokes the holy name of the Christ, and among other invocations says (according to the best Greek text): Note by Professor F. C. Burkitt, D.D.
Then later we read “And Mygdonia said: Give me the seal [baptism] of Jesus Christ”, “we invoke upon thee the name of [thy?] Jesus. And he said: Let the powers of blessing come, and be established in this bread, that all the souls which partake of it may be washed from their sins.”, “whereupon we invoke thine holy name.”, “In thy name, O Jesu Christ, let it be unto these souls for remission of sins and for turning back of the adversary and for salvation of their souls.”And from the Acts of Thomas, on the very same page as the invoke quote (which also invokes the name of the mother):

The New Testament Apocrypha
Acts of Thomas
https://books.google.com/books?id=aUHlC6XW1-AC&pg=PA422

And having thus said, he poured oil over their heads and said: Glory be to thee the love of compassion (bowels). Glory to thee, name of Christ. Glory to thee, power established in Christ. And he commanded a vessel to be brought, and baptized them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. So this one is not a testimony to the Matthew text, and it is not a testimony to baptism in the name of Jesus. In fact, there seems to be three such references in The Acts of Thomas.

Why not try to do real scholarship?
Why leave off a reference on the same page?

[Scott Pitta]

The key issue is how the Matthew greg commission is quoted. Unless a quote specifically mentions Matthew, it does not have any value for determining the text of Mt. 28:19.

[FlamingZword]

The Gospel of Philip has the following text “Those who will be baptized go down into the water. But Christ, by coming out of the water, will consecrate it, so that they who have received the baptism in his name may be perfect.”, “By perfecting the water of baptism, Jesus emptied it of death.”, “If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says "I am a Christian," he has borrowed the name at interest.”, “Baptism is "the Holy" building”, “Baptism includes the resurrection and the redemption”, “we are conceived through Christ in baptism”, “The holy place is baptism”, “Baptism entails resurrection and redemption, and redemption is in the bridal chamber”.” As Jesus perfected the water of baptism, he poured death out. For this reason we go down into the water but not into death, that we may not be poured out into the spirit of the world.”, “Great is baptism,” for if people receive it, they will live”

[Evang.Benincasa]

The bottom line boys and girls is that you have an individual and individuals proposing that the Matthew you hold in your hands is flawed. The Matthew has an ending which has an insertion. This might make some of you roll down the isles in glee. But, cooler heads just raise the eyebrow. Because if one insertion was made, then logically, and quite obviously there must be at least a few more. Or at worse, the entire book is a hodgepodge of insertions. This by no means strengthens a case for New Testament integrity, but actually does more to bring doubt on this book, and sadly others. The Matthew 28:19 discussion hinges on not only the insertion, but that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Not Aramaic, but Hebrew. There's your real devil in the details. We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew. Listen, Matthew's Greek original uses the Greek word for virgin. While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman. So, you don't just have your Matthew 28:19 insertion, you have the virgin birth getting erased. Hebrew Roots with all of its Yahooing away of the Greek, ends up placing the entire Gospel in the trick bag.

[navygoat1998]

The bottom line boys and girls is that you have an individual and individuals proposing that the Matthew you hold in your hands is flawed. The Matthew has an ending which has an insertion. This might make some of you roll down the isles in glee. But, cooler heads just raise the eyebrow. Because if one insertion was made, then logically, and quite obviously there must be at least a few more. Or at worse, the entire book is a hodgepodge of insertions. This by no means strengthens a case for New Testament integrity, but actually does more to bring doubt on this book, and sadly others. The Matthew 28:19 discussion hinges on not only the insertion, but that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Not Aramaic, but Hebrew. There's your real devil in the details. We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew. Listen, Matthew's Greek original uses the Greek word for virgin. While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman. So, you don't just have your Matthew 28:19 insertion, you have the virgin birth getting erased. Hebrew Roots with all of its Yahooing away of the Greek, ends up placing the entire Gospel in the trick bag.

:highfive

[Scott Pitta]

It would be interesting and beneficial to see more quotes of the supposed Hebrew original in the current Greek text. But there seems to be none.

Then again, there are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew from the second or third centuries for us to examine.

Nor are there any variant readings of Mt. 28:19 for any reason.

Theories must be based on hard data.

[Steven Avery]

A couple of tweaks

We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew. Two different Hebrew Matthews. DuTillet (and Munster) have the traditional ending.

While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman. Not really. That is anti-missionary agit-prop. Almah in the context of Isaiah 7:14 is excellent as virgin. Betulah has difficulties.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The Wycliffe Bible commentary: Matthew, Pfeiffer, C. F.

Composition and Date. The great frequency of citations and allusions to Matthew found in the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and others attests its early composition and widespread use. The literary connections of this Gospel must be considered in its relations to the other Synoptics, and also to the statement of Papias that "Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted as he could" (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39). Many have explained Papias' statement as referring to an Aramaic original from which our Greek Gospel is a translation. Yet our Greek text does not bear the marks of a translation, and the absence of any trace of an Aramaic original casts grave doubts upon this hypothesis. Goodspeed argues at length that it would be contrary to Greek practice to name a Greek translation after the author of an Aramaic original, for Greeks were concerned only with the one who put a work into Greek. As examples he cites the Gospel of Mark (it was not called the Gospel of Peter) and the Greek Old Testament, which was called the Septuagint (Seventy) after its translators, not after its Hebrew authors (E. J. Goodspeed, Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist, pp. 105, 106). Thus Papias is understood to mean that Matthew recorded (by shorthand?) the discourses of Jesus in Aramaic, and later drew upon these when he composed his Greek Gospel. Though it is surely possible that Mark was written first, and may have been available to Matthew, there was no slavish use of this shorter Gospel by Matthew, and many have argued for the complete independence of the two books.

[Evang.Benincasa]

A couple of tweaks

Two different Hebrew Matthews. DuTillet (and Munster) have the traditional ending.

Not really. That is anti-missionary agit-prop. Almah in the context of Isaiah 7:14 is excellent as virgin. Betulah has difficulties.

Bringing up the DuTillet Matthew or the shem tov Matthew is due to being penned in Hebrew. The word עלמה almah means unmarried young woman. You are correct to point out that anti-missionaries jump all over that word to disprove Jesus as Christ. But that is where we get led when we accuse the Gospel according to Matthew to be originally penned in the Hebrew language. My specific cardinal point in which I intended to go with my post, is primarily where this all leads. It isn't just about an insertion of Baptize in the name of the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. No, this is something much more dire. It is question begging, that since Matthew 28:19 was corrupted (not hundreds) but thousands of years ago. Seriously? So, what else is a mess? If anyone took the time to go through the Thomas Jefferson New Testament, you would find a cut up pasted labirnyth of chaos. Is that what Matthew is now? Ask yourself? Your atheists friends and relatives would love to know about your Hellenized shredded version of Matthew, contains?

[Steven Avery]

Yet our Greek text does not bear the marks of a translation, Amen.

And the internal translations, where a Hebrew or Aramaic word is translated into Greek, are virtual proof that the Gospels were not written in a semitic language. Such translations would not be in the theorized original semitic text, and there is no warrant for adding them into a conjectured translation (e.g. Hebrew to Greek.) And they are virtually 100% consistent in all the Greek and Latin manuscripts and text-lines. Why? Simply because the author wrote in Greek, with Mark having a few possibilities involving Latin.

[Scott Pitta]

Outstanding research, Rev. Avery.

[FlamingZword]

It would be interesting and beneficial to see more quotes of the supposed Hebrew original in the current Greek text. But there seems to be none.

Then again, there are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew from the second or third centuries for us to examine.

Nor are there any variant readings of Mt. 28:19 for any reason.

Theories must be based on hard data.

Then again, there are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew from the second or third centuries for us to examine.

None whatsoever.

The oldest verified Greek traditional text, “The Codex Vaticanus” dates from 325-350 AD.

[FlamingZword]

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.

[FlamingZword]

The bottom line boys and girls is that you have an individual and individuals proposing that the Matthew you hold in your hands is flawed. The Matthew has an ending which has an insertion. This might make some of you roll down the isles in glee. But, cooler heads just raise the eyebrow. Because if one insertion was made, then logically, and quite obviously there must be at least a few more. Or at worse, the entire book is a hodgepodge of insertions. This by no means strengthens a case for New Testament integrity, but actually does more to bring doubt on this book, and sadly others. The Matthew 28:19 discussion hinges on not only the insertion, but that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Not Aramaic, but Hebrew. There's your real devil in the details. We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew. Listen, Matthew's Greek original uses the Greek word for virgin. While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman. So, you don't just have your Matthew 28:19 insertion, you have the virgin birth getting erased. Hebrew Roots with all of its Yahooing away of the Greek, ends up placing the entire Gospel in the trick bag.

Regarding the Gospel of Matthew, “I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea” Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus.

[FlamingZword]

The bottom line boys and girls is that you have an individual and individuals proposing that the Matthew you hold in your hands is flawed. The Matthew has an ending which has an insertion. This might make some of you roll down the isles in glee. But, cooler heads just raise the eyebrow. Because if one insertion was made, then logically, and quite obviously there must be at least a few more. Or at worse, the entire book is a hodgepodge of insertions. This by no means strengthens a case for New Testament integrity, but actually does more to bring doubt on this book, and sadly others. The Matthew 28:19 discussion hinges on not only the insertion, but that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Not Aramaic, but Hebrew. There's your real devil in the details. We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew. Listen, Matthew's Greek original uses the Greek word for virgin. While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman. So, you don't just have your Matthew 28:19 insertion, you have the virgin birth getting erased. Hebrew Roots with all of its Yahooing away of the Greek, ends up placing the entire Gospel in the trick bag.

We have proof of an insertion in 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” also known as the Comma Johanneum.”
This spurious text is now omitted from all modern New Testament versions. It has now become an embarrassment that is quietly being hidden under the rug. Not even the Catholic Trinitarian scholars dare to defend this fabricated text anymore.
The Jerusalem Bible (1966) which is the Official Roman Catholic version reads “so that there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and all three of them agree.” (1 Jhn 5:7-8). So we can see that even the main defenders of the trinity have now omitted this text.
The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) Another catholic version reads at 1 John 5:7-8: 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
The NOVA VULGATA BIBLIORUM SACRORUM EDITIO the latest official Vulgate, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1998 also no longer has it. So we see that even the Catholich church has already given up on this text that supports the trinity.

Also most protestant bibles have abandoned the comma Johanneum. The two major protestant translations of the 20th century, the RSV and NIV, also do not have this spurious phrase in them.

So we see that the Catholic Church and most protestant bibles have already admitted to this insertion. Yet a few deluded protestant trinitarians continue to defend it, I can understand that some die hard trinitatians defend this verse, but hey Benincasa are you one of those defenders of the Comma Johanneum? :)

[Steven Avery]

We have proof of an insertion in 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” also known as the Comma Johanneum.”) Nonsense.
The heavenly witnesses is 100% the pure scripture, with incredible supporting evidence.

We have some discussion on the forum on two threads, and I tried to teach you about the evidences.

The Johannine Comma: Inspiration? Or Interpolation? (2007) - 17 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=6054

You could learn a lot by reviewing that thread.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

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. Far too vague.
The first time I have ever hard of a passage in the New Testament criticized for "Europeanized wording and structure".

What specific words are Europeanized or Latinized?
What element of structure?
And was he arguing to remove the whole verse?
Very strange.

[Esaias]

Far too vague.
The first time I have ever hard of a passage in the New Testament criticized for "Europeanized wording and structure".

What specific words are Europeanized or Latinized?
What element of structure?
And was he arguing to remove the whole verse?
Very strange.

Would Simon happen to have been a 16th century Polish Jew?

EDIT: found this on Wikipedia (I know, I know) -

Symon Budny was an early figure in the party in the Radical Reformation which utterly denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Budny, along with the Greek Unitarian Jacobus Palaeologus, and the Hungarian Ferenc David, denied not just the pre-existence of Christ, which is what distinguished "Socinian" from "Arian" belief, but Budny, Paleologus and David went further and also denied invocation of Christ. Among these three Budny also denied the virgin birth.[12] According to Wilbur (1947) it was his strong stance against the worship of and prayer to Christ that brought a separation with those like Marcin Czechowic who considered the views of Budny, Paleologus, and David as a revival of the Ebionite position and a form of Judaizing, and resulted in Budny's excommunication from the Minor Reformed Church of Poland.,[13] though subsequent Eastern European historians consider that in Budny's case it may have been on account of his note in the Belarusian New Testament stating that Jesus was Joseph's son, as much as the better known in the West letter to Fausto Sozzini (1581) to which Fausto Sozzini's answer is preserved in Volume II of the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum printed by Sozzini's grandson in Amsterdam, 1668.[14]
(end quote)

Sad that a Oneness Pentecostal has to resort to clowns like this to support some off the wall attack on God's Word.

[Esaias]

Calvinist priest of Lithuania in the sixteenth century; founder of the Polish sect of the Budnians, who were surnamed "Half-Jews" ("Semi-Judaizantes").

...

Budny associated much with Jewish scholars, and was a great friend of the Jews. He was somewhat familiar with the Hebrew language and literature. Hezekiah David Abulafia mentions him in his work "Ben Zeḳuniam" in the following words: "There is another wise man, by the name of Simon Budny, who praises the Talmud very much and considers it to be the best work of all literatures."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3801-budny-simon

[Esaias]

Funny how a hunch plays out, eh?

[Steven Avery]

Interesting about the (half) Jew conjecture, also the degree to which Budny was an ebionite.

Sad that a Oneness Pentecostal has to resort to clowns like this to support some off the wall attack on God's Word.
Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation: Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551-1632)
David A. Frick
https://books.google.com/books?id=Vt7_Ypel12cC&pg=PA87

Budny
"the books" have been corrupted, and especially the manuscripts of the New Testament, "which are so corrupt, falsified, that I do not know whether anything could be more corrupt."’ Frick actually has a lot of interesting material in that book.

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

And I wrote a little bit about Budny here, with a small reference about the ebionite element.

Symon Budny (1530-1593) in the Preface to the 1574 Polish New Testament, working with the information gleaned from Valla and Erasmus, noted three principle causes of textual errors ...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/687964407957229/

Budny was one of the very early opponents of "God was manifest in the flesh", preferring "which was manifest" meaning the mystery.

As for his scholarship on the end of Matthew, it would be fine to look it over.

[Scott Pitta]

All of the early Greek manuscripts of Matthew read the same way in Mt. 28:19. That reading did not change over time. The late manuscripts and the early manuscripts read the same way. There is no variation over time in Mt. 28:19.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Regarding the Gospel of Matthew, “I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea” Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus.

Those Hebrew letters were supposedly notations. You might not understand this, but the Gospel according to Matthew was known as a "book" a "scroll" not letters. FZ, you do understand that hearsay is inadmissible in court? Do you happen to know why sir?

[Evang.Benincasa]

We have proof of an insertion in 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” also known as the Comma Johanneum.”

FZ, that is due to the minority text. Not the majority text, which does have the heavenly witness.



This spurious text is now omitted from all modern New Testament versions.

Thank you for proving my original point. Which was how many more insertions? how many verses does NIV omit? 16 verses are omitted because like you, the translators accepted the testimony of a few scrolls. Matthew 17:21 is missing, because it was missing in 2 scrolls. Do the math, there is a reason why there is a majority text and a minority text. Matthew 17:21 is missing from the MINORITY TEXT. Matthew 18:11, GONE, Matthew 23:14...GONE! Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26:, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:4, Acts 8:3, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST I John 5:7 gone, gone, gone. Where is Lysias? In the minority text he is missing? In Acts 24:7 the writers felt it was very important to include him in the witness. But the minority text forgets he was ever there. Could you explain why he was removed? Or better yet, why was he INSERTED? You see my friend the difficulties you face when you state that your faith stands up a holy book riddled with insertions? We have a huge library of manuscripts which agree more with the majority than with the minority. Yet, even the minority books still have the same Matthew 28:19 which we have today. Your argument falls flat on it face.



It has now become an embarrassment that is quietly being hidden under the rug. Not even the Catholic Trinitarian scholars dare to defend this fabricated text anymore.

My friend what is embarrassing is that Modern Christianity is mere opinion. Since opinions of scholars, saints, preachers, evangelists are seen to be higher than logically observing the EVIDENCE we have set before us.
Historically the New Testament was originally and purposely penned in Greek. Jesus not only spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, but could speak Greek and Latin. As a young boy he was taken into Hellenized Egypt, read an Old Testament, and quoted from it which was entirely penned in Greek. Matthew was a Roman Tax collector who had to be able to speak fluently in Greek, Latin, and be able to write in these languages. He had to be able to give parchments, and keep records in Greek and Latin. If he kept notes in Aramaic, then we have not a shred of evidence. He most certainly wouldn't of kept the notes in Hebrew. Because Hebrew in the first century was a liturgical language. Reserved for temple work. You bring up Catholics? They have always defended a Aramaic/ Hebrew Matthew. There Popish teaching works in Hebrew Matthew 16:18. Not in Greek, it is a word play in Greek. Because in Aramaic Hebrew Matthew just calls Peter the rock which the church is built upon. In Greek Peter is called a piece of the rock, a smaller piece. Therefore there is no way we would confuse the greater rock, with Peter. So, my friend, if you were Catholic, a Greek Matthew doesn't uphold the Popish crown.



The Jerusalem Bible (1966) which is the Official Roman Catholic version reads “so that there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and all three of them agree.” (1 Jhn 5:7-8). So we can see that even the main defenders of the trinity have now omitted this text.
The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) Another catholic version reads at 1 John 5:7-8: 7 So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
The NOVA VULGATA BIBLIORUM SACRORUM EDITIO the latest official Vulgate, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1998 also no longer has it. So we see that even the Catholich church has already given up on this text that supports the trinity.

They removed it because they went to using the minority text versions.
My brother, it isn't just a question of one verse here. It is a question of how really shredded this New Testament really is. Hence Roman Catholics teach their people that there canons had to be created to help out a book, that needs a lot of help. Keep in mind that you are defending the Roman Catholic translation. When in fact they don't want their people Bible studying in the first place. What I mean, is that they use to take the Bible away, and replace it with the priest. Now they just give you their minority translations and everyone is happy. Including you.


Also most protestant bibles have abandoned the comma Johanneum. The two major protestant translations of the 20th century, the RSV and NIV, also do not have this spurious phrase in them.

Because they are from the minority text.



So we see that the Catholic Church and most protestant bibles have already admitted to this insertion. Yet a few deluded protestant trinitarians continue to defend it, I can understand that some die hard trinitatians defend this verse,

My friend, you are missing the point here. You first start out with stating that Matthew 28:19 has been tampered with by Hellenized scribes. But, as I pointed out in my earlier posts you don't stop there. You keep chopping away. 1 John 5:7 gets the axe, and why? Because it seems to Three godder to you? Just a wee bit Trinitarian to you? 1 John 5:7 gets removed by the Watchtower Bible Society, but they didn't stop there. They modified John 1:1,. To say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." yeah, good times. So, if the my doctrine doesn't fit the Bible, I just take out scissor and pen? No thanks.



but hey Benincasa are you one of those defenders of the Comma Johanneum? :)

Yes, because I know all to well these verses

Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Ecclesiastes 3:14, Galatians 1:8, 2 Peter 3:16, and Revelation 22:18-19.

Again, be honest with yourself. How much more of these New Testament books are smoked? Seriously, you are just painting yourself into a corner, and in a face to face standoff on this subject around an audience. You wouldn't be able to stand.

Keeping you in prayer, and hope you consider my words.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Sad that a Oneness Pentecostal has to resort to clowns like this to support some off the wall attack on God's Word.

Yet, that's what ends up happening. Since a lack of hard evidence or some good historically proofs. People end up resorting to individuals who actually have some antichrist reasons for their agenda of a Hebrew Matthew and New Testament. But this proves my point once again. In an earlier post I spoke about the Hebrew word which means young woman. Which is used to allude to Jesus not being born of a virgin. The main thing I would like to point out about Symon Budny, is that his argument against Jesus was concerning the Hebrew. He asserted that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, because the Hebrew never said that the Christ would be born of a virgin. Symon Budny, during his own lifetime was used by anti missionary Jews of the time. One who was well known was Issac ben Avraham Troki. Who used Symon Budny's writings to prove that Jesus wasn't divine, wasn't a savior to the Jews, and didn't come to start Christianity.

[Steven Avery]

Just a note that the evidences for the heavenly witnesses is not the Greek Majority - Minority issue. This issue is a main part of the discussion on the Mark ending, Pericope Adulterae, 1 Timothy 3:16, John 1:18 and 1,000 other verses where the corruption modern versions are far inferior to the Authorized Version, often with piddle omission corruptions.

On the heavenly witnesses, the evidence is much more from the Latin side, and came over from the Greek in the first centuries. This is much more like Acts 8:37, which has light Greek ms. support

The heavenly witnesses has incredible early church writings support, Ante-Nicene like Tertullian followed by Cyprian, also Jerome in the Vulgate Prologue and a Carthage of Council in the 400s where hundreds affirmed the verse in their Bible contra the Arians under Huneric.

The solecism in the short Greek text, the Johannine beautiful consistency and style, all the Latin evidences, and more .. lots of this should be on the thread above. Many learned scholars see this verse as actually having been difficult for the Trinitarian side in the Sabellian controversies.

Steven

[Esaias]

Just a note that the evidences for the heavenly witnesses is not the Greek Majority - Minority issue. This issue is a main part of the discussion on the Mark ending, Pericope Adulterae, 1 Timothy 3:16, John 1:18 and 1,000 other verses where the corruption modern versions are far inferior to the Authorized Version, often with piddle omission corruptions.

On the heavenly witnesses, the evidence is much more from the Latin side, and came over from the Greek in the first centuries. This is much more like Acts 8:37, which has light Greek ms. support

The heavenly witnesses has incredible early church writings support, Ante-Nicene like Tertullian followed by Cyprian, also Jerome in the Vulgate Prologue and a Carthage of Council in the 400s where hundreds affirmed the verse in their Bible contra the Arians under Huneric.

The solecism in the short Greek text, the Johannine beautiful consistency and style, all the Latin evidences, and more .. lots of this should be on the thread above. Many learned scholars see this verse as actually having been difficult for the Trinitarian side in the Sabellian controversies.

Steven

Exactly. The heavenly witnesses verse, along with the earthly witnesses verse, provide a neat, concise summation of BOTH the godhead AND the new birth.

[Steven Avery]

Exactly. The heavenly witnesses verse, along with the earthly witnesses verse, provide a neat, concise summation of BOTH the godhead AND the new birth. Amen.

Here is a work in progress (WIP) on these Sabellian questions.
Note that the Eusebius reference is a recent discovery for my studies (it may be in Charles Forster or Kittel, or it may be a discovery of the author of the paper), and quite incredible, and needs more study.

Pure Bible Forum
scholars theorizing that the Sabellian controversies contributed to the Greek ms line drop
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?671-scholars-theorizing-that-the-Sabellian-controversies-contributed-to-the-Greek-ms-line-drop&p=2229#post2229

[FlamingZword]

In 1728 Thomas Burnet in his book 'de fide et officiis Cristianorum.' criticized Matthew 28:19 and mentioned that variations had existed in the baptismal formula.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Exactly. The heavenly witnesses verse, along with the earthly witnesses verse, provide a neat, concise summation of BOTH the godhead AND the new birth.

:thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

In 1728 Thomas Burnet in his book 'de fide et officiis Cristianorum.' criticized Matthew 28:19 and mentioned that variations had existed in the baptismal formula.

Well, well, Thomas "localized flood" Burnet, he also believed that the book of Genesis' story of the creation was symbolic, and that Adam and Eve story was also symbolic. But I wouldn't discount any hard evidence which Thomas Burnet would've presented. Yet, alas he hadn't any. What we do have are manuscripts all written in Greek, which the originals were penned in Greek. FZ, please produce some solid evidence to strengthen your argument. So, far you have only proven that you believe that the Bible in its current form can not uphold Apostolic Truth. Somewhere a Trinitarian theologian is laughing at you. :lol

[Steven Avery]

Well, well, Thomas "localized flood" Burnet, he also believed that the book of Genesis' story of the creation was symbolic, and that Adam and Eve story was also symbolic. But I wouldn't discount any hard evidence which Thomas Burnet would've presented. Yet, alas he hadn't any. What we do have are manuscripts all written in Greek, which the originals were penned in Greek. FZ, please produce some solid evidence to strengthen your argument. So, far you have only proven that you believe that the Bible in its current form can not uphold Apostolic Truth. Somewhere a Trinitarian theologian is laughing at you. :lolAmen. Thanks.
However,

Thomas Burnet (1635-1715)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Burnet

did seem to support a global flood, in the midst of some unusual cosmogony.

Here is an example third-party summary quote:

William Whiston: Honest Newtonian (2002)
By James E. Force
https://books.google.com/books?id=dc6Zk-HvIwwC&pg=PA173

"... Sacred Theory of the Earth, pp. 381-412, Burnet repeats his argument for the radical differences between the antediluvian and postdiluvian earth. He concludes that only his theory agrees with Moses’ history of both the extent of the Flood (Moses and Burnet claim that it covered the entire earth) and the mechanical causes (a rupture of the crust of the Cartesian third element, and a heavy rainfall). He criticizes in particular those theorists, such as Isaac La Peyrere, who in his notorious Men Before Adam (London, 1656), Book 4, claims that the Flood was a local event confined to Noah’s immediate environment."

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

On Matthew 28:19 Thomas Burnet does not seem to really have said too much.
We can try to parse out the Latin here:

De fide et officiis Christianorum (1727, originally 1720)
Thomas Burnet
https://books.google.com/books?id=YvC6JXO-CV0C&pg=PA207

It seems that his English translated books do not support special referencing on Matthew 28:19.

The Resurrection and Modern Thought (1915)
By William John Sparrow-Simpson
https://books.google.com/books?id=ueVNAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268

A criticism upon the Formula was made by Thomas Burnet1 in a work published in 1727. Burnet did not discuss the question, but observed that variations had existed in the Baptismal phrases.

Yes, there are variations in the baptism phrase.
Note the comment about Riggenbach noting Burnet differently.
Also a fine comment on p. 271, using Chase, about the times where Eusebius utilized the full verse wording.

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

Apparently Burnet awkwardly, with difficulty, tried to take a middle ground in the Trinity battles of Samuel Clarke with Daniel Waterland in a book titled:

The Scripture-Trinity Intelligibly Explained: Or, an Essay Toward the Demonstration of a Trinity in Unity, from Reason and Scripture. In a Chain of Consequences from Certain Principles.
Thomas Burnet
https://books.google.com/books?id=DmNjAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR1

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

Most of the above was new to me tonight.
Thanks for the referencing.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Burnet is a localized flood believer. Also denounced the deity of Christ. He firmly believed Joseph was Jesus’ biological father. Anything he had written concerning Matthew 28:19 would of been his theological thoughts concerning the verse ( that’s just my personal opinion) not his doubts on the verse being an actual quote from Jesus. Yet, our dear brother FZ failed to supply us with the notation from Burnet. Really we aren’t supplied with much in anyway to really examine these statements from dead theologians. Which FZ is so proudly posting to us their vague witness. Just goes to show you how opinion, and agenda goes into translation. Translation is more personal interpretation that literal translating. Take for instance the Bible which FZ translated. With what we know concerning his personal belief concerning Matthew 28:19 do you think he translated it properly? What manuscripts did he use? What is his expertise in Hebrew, and Aramaic? These are important questions.

[Steven Avery]

DNB
https://books.google.com/books?id=gGpIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA408

Time for a correction.

The Scripture-Trinity Thomas Burnet (d. 1750) DNB p. 410
his books are listed c. 1730 at:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SnRbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA32
https://books.google.com/books?id=SNJbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA2

is different than:

The cosmogony Thomas Burnet.(1635?-1715) DNB p. 408-410
with the note on Matthew 28:19 in De fide et officiis Christianorum
Publications were published posthumously, I think two Latin pubs, including De fide and De Statu, and there is a mention of an English translation of those two works by Dennis in DNB.

The Scripture-Trinity gentleman is not referenced in Wikipedia (and should be, that work was right in the middle of major Christology controversies.)

A third Thomas Burnet (1694-1753) - DNB p. 410-411
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Burnet,_Thomas_(1694-1753)_(DNB00)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gGpIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA410
Wrote a book called:
The True Church of Christ, 1753
however, mostly he was in humor or poetry or some other types of writings.

[Steven Avery]

Burnet is a localized flood believer. Also denounced the deity of Christ. He firmly believed Joseph was Jesus’ biological father. Anything he had written concerning Matthew 28:19 would of been his theological thoughts concerning the verse ( that’s just my personal opinion) not his doubts on the verse being an actual quote from Jesus. Yet, our dear brother FZ failed to supply us with the notation from Burnet. Really we aren’t supplied with much in anyway to really examine these statements from dead theologians. Which FZ is so proudly posting to us their vague witness. Just goes to show you how opinion, and agenda goes into translation. Translation is more personal interpretation that literal translating. Take for instance the Bible which FZ translated. With what we know concerning his personal belief concerning Matthew 28:19 do you think he translated it properly? What manuscripts did he use? What is his expertise in Hebrew, and Aramaic? These are important questions. Allowing the open question about the flood (quotes or references needed) this looks spot-on, including the ultra-low ebionite Christology of Burnet, and the spotty referencing from FZ.

Oh, the warning about translation is true, which is one reason why the AV is so superb, the 50 learned men translated to accuracy, not to doctrine.

Did FZ translate a Bible?
Or did he simply reference some other work, again spottily.

However, from my studies on the heavenly witnesses, i really enjoy filling in gaps like this one on the Thomas Burnets, including how it takes us over to the historical geology and creationary issues! Fascinating.

Also an early ebionite writer, way before the well-known Joseph Priestley. Budny, discussed above, also had ebionite sympathies, and Frick talks about how he toned them down from one edition to another.

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

Here is another short quote about the Thomas Burnet cosmogony, on drifting and dividing continent theories..

For the Son of Man has Come to Save that which is Lost (2008)
Alexander Douglas
http://www.freethechurch.org/Library/That-Which-Was-Lost.pdf

The first suggestion of continental division came from a biblical scholar, the English cleric, Thomas Burnet in 1681 when he published his book, The Sacred Theory of the Earth, which postulated that the opening of the deep caused the continents to be pushed apart3.

3 Miller, Russell & the editors of Time-Life Books. Continents in Collision, Time-Life Books. 1983, pp. 13 & 14.

[Steven Avery]

While I was researching the heavenly witnesses and Eusebius, i did bump into one of his Matthew 28:19 full usages, with full context. This was recently translated to English and published. And I have not yet checked if it is in the list of his three full Matthew 28:19 usages referenced briefly above, in the reference to Frederic Cornwallis Chase. (Pretty sure it is.) Nor have I checked the date of the writing.

What is superb is that you can see the somewhat convoluted doctrinal dancing of Eusebius (who is sometimes called semi-Arian, but this is difficult, since early church writers are variously being accused of being Sabellian or Arian.)

Pure Bible Forum
Eusebius and the Sabellian controversies
Jeroen Beekhuizen - The Comma Johanneum revisited
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?792-Jeroen-Beekhuizen-The-Comma-Johanneum-revisited&p=1699#post1699

An extract from Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical Theology” III, 4-6
Roger Pearse - August 30, 2013
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013/08/30/an-extract-from-eusebius-ecclesiastical-theology-iii-4-6/

Wherefore only this spirit has been included in the holy and thrice-blessed Triad. This is not different from the Savior’s explaining to his apostles his sacrament of rebirth for all those from the nations who believe in him. He commanded them to baptize “them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Of the Father because he has full authority and gives the grace. Of the Son because he ministers to this grace (for “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”). Of the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, who is himself provided according to the diversity of graces in himself: ‘For to one is given a word of wisdom through the Spirit, but to another a word of knowledge according to the same spirit. To another is given faith by the same Spirit” and likewise the things considered with these. ... More context on the Roger Pearse site. Then more still in the book.

[FlamingZword]

In 1778 in The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples by professor of Hebrew and Oriental languages, Hermann Samuel Reimarus wrote: “In the first place the genuineness of the command to baptize in Matt. xxviii. 19 is questionable, not only as a saying ascribed to the risen Jesus, but also because it is universalistic in outlook, and because it implies the doctrine of the Trinity and, consequently, the metaphysical Divine Sonship of Jesus”

[Evang.Benincasa]

In 1778 in The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples by professor of Hebrew and Oriental languages, Hermann Samuel Reimarus wrote: “In the first place the genuineness of the command to baptize in Matt. xxviii. 19 is questionable, not only as a saying ascribed to the risen Jesus, but also because it is universalistic in outlook, and because it implies the doctrine of the Trinity and, consequently, the metaphysical Divine Sonship of Jesus”

FZ, if Satan was to have a quote defending your position, would you honor it?

The above opinion is from another individual who denied the deity of Christ. Like Thomas Jefferson, Reimarus believed that the New Testament as filled with insertions, and untruths. FZ, it seems since you couldn't reconcile these verses you gave up, and decided they needed to be removed? Doctrines which are built by removing book, chapters, and verses are false doctrines.

Think about it.

[Steven Avery]

The above opinion is from another individual who denied the deity of Christ. Like Thomas Jefferson, Reimarus believed that the New Testament as filled with insertions, and untruths Just a bit more on Reimarus, through Albert Schweitzer, a fan. This chapter starts on p. 13, and is all from Reimarus.

The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910, this edition 2012)
By Albert Schweitzer
https://books.google.com/books?id=9QN-POg7xSAC&pg=PA18
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/chapter2.html

Hermann Samuel Reimarus

...

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are no evidence that Jesus intended to found a new religion. In the first place the genuineness of the command to baptize in Matt, xxviii. 19 is questionable, not only as a saying ascribed to the risen Jesus, but also because it is universalistic in outlook, and because it implies the doctrine of the Trinity and, consequently, the metaphysical Divine Sonship of Jesus. In this it is inconsistent with the earliest traditions regarding the practice of baptism in the Christian community, for in theearliest times, as we learn from the Acts and from Paul, it was the custom to baptize, not in the name of the Trinity, but in the name of Jesus, the Messiah.

But, furthermore, it is questionable whether Baptism really goes back to Jesus at all. He Himself baptized no one in His own lifetime, and never commanded any of His converts to be baptized. So we cannot be sure about the origin of Baptism, though we can be sure of its meaning. Baptism in the name of Jesus signified only that Jesus was the Messiah.“ For the only change which the teaching of Jesus made in their religion was that whereas they had formerly believed in a Deliverer of Israel who was to come in the future, they now believed in a Deliverer who was already present.”

[FlamingZword]

John Chambers in An Harmony of the Four Gospels (1813) in a note to Matthew 28:19 says: "We find Christ's disciples,…baptizing them, only, in the name of Jesus, or Lord Jesus, or into Jesus Christ, etc.

[FlamingZword]

FZ, if Satan was to have a quote defending your position, would you honor it?

The above opinion is from another individual who denied the deity of Christ. Like Thomas Jefferson, Reimarus believed that the New Testament as filled with insertions, and untruths. FZ, it seems since you couldn't reconcile these verses you gave up, and decided they needed to be removed? Doctrines which are built by removing book, chapters, and verses are false doctrines.

Think about it.

Paul cited pagan philosophers, which were worshipers of pagan images and deities.

[Steven Avery]

John Chambers in An Harmony of the Four Gospels (1813) in a note to Matthew 28:19 says: "We find Christ's disciples,…baptizing them, only, in the name of Jesus, or Lord Jesus, or into Jesus Christ, etc.The Chambers text is:

An harmony of the four Gospels, or A series of the narratives of the Evangelists
(1813)
John Chambers (of Retford)
https://books.google.com/books?id=HVoUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA873

19 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them, in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;

We find Christ’s disciples, instead of baptizing men, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, baptizing them, only, in the name of Jesus, or Lord Jesus, or info Jesus Christ, &c. As the three persons of the triune Deity, are said to be one, I John 5: 7, Paul, and Christ’s disciples, probably baptized only in one of the names, for that reason. See Acts 2: 38, 41. - 8:12,16,36, &c. - 10:43 - 19:5. - 22: i6. Rom. 6: 3, 4. — I Cor. 1: 15. - 12; 13. - 15: 29. Gal, 3: 27. Col, 2: 12.

[Evang.Benincasa]

John Chambers in An Harmony of the Four Gospels (1813) in a note to Matthew 28:19 says: "We find Christ's disciples,…baptizing them, only, in the name of Jesus, or Lord Jesus, or into Jesus Christ, etc.

FZ, where does anyone dispute this? Now you are off the subject. The subject isn’t the baptism formula used by the Apostolic church. Whether or not the correct formula is the name or titles. We baptize in Jesus name. The church baptized in Jesus name. Your argument is that Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew and that is was corrupted by Greek scribes you totally changed the contents. That Trinitarian slanted views were inserted. This my friend is a charge that makes Rabbi, Muslims, Mormons, and Atheists stand to give you a round of applause. It is embarrassing that one, you don’t understand the verse in the oringinal form. So much in fact, that you feel the need to modify the text without solid evidence. Two, that you can’t see that what you propose brings the entire New Testament into question. Where you actually aren’t helping, but hurting. You must not care. Looks like agenda for your beliefs overrides truthful scholarship.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Paul cited pagan philosophers, which were worshipers of pagan images and deities.

Sad, FZ, seriously? Paul was using their content of thought. How it logically agreed with the church. You on the other hand are bringing to use content of theology. Where these philosophers and theologians are making statements concerning CHRIST’S DEITY. Hence they doubted the very use of the verse. These weren’t pagans making philosophical statements who were clueless about Christianity. These are philosophers and theologians who didn’t believe the text was sound, translated correctly, and didn’t believe Jesus Christ was GOD. Sorry, but you don’t understand difference. Paul believed Jesus was God. Used quotes from the Hellenized world where they agreed with Paul’s teachings. The pagan philosophers WHERENT Christians, we see how Paul treated false teachers.
FZ, you are losing the argument, and need to step up your game.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The Chambers text is:

Exactly, because Chambers didn't believe that Matthew 28:19 was spurious.
It looks like FZ has run out of road in defending his claims concerning the New Testament's supposed corruptions.

[Steven Avery]

Exactly, because Chambers didn't believe that Matthew 28:19 was spurious.
It looks like FZ has run out of road in defending his claims concerning the New Testament's supposed corruptions. FZ even put in "..." to hide the words that are in the Bible harmony text:

"nstead of baptizing men, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

None dare call this scholarship!

[Evang.Benincasa]

FZ even put in "..." to hide the words that are in the Bible harmony text:

"nstead of baptizing men, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

None dare call this scholarship!

FZ must of missed Chambers' notation of 1 John 5:7. Sorry, my friend FZ, but Paul used pagan Greek philosophers who strengthened his arguments to the Hellenized Judeans and Romans. Didn't use those who weakened his arguments. Brother FZ, how much do you know about the Greeks whom Paul quoted?

[FlamingZword]

“Many believed their doctrine, professed allegiance to Jesus Christ, by being baptized in his name…Own dear reader, the justice of your condemnation; forsake your sins; confess your guild in having so long despised and disesteemed the only saviour; be immersed in his name for the remission of your sins through his blood:…So the claims of a person to the honor and priveleges of a Christian are defective, till he has put on Christ by being baptized in his name…They had heard the gospel, believed in Jesus, been baptized in his name, and were united in holy fellowship…Perhaps thou hast obtained mercy, yet hast not made that public profession of it which Christ requires, by being baptized in his name.” The Primitive Church Magazine (1841) p. 10, 11, 59, 193, 269

[Steven Avery]

“Many believed their doctrine, professed allegiance to Jesus Christ, by being baptized in his name…Own dear reader, the justice of your condemnation; forsake your sins; confess your guild in having so long despised and disesteemed the only saviour; be immersed in his name for the remission of your sins through his blood:…So the claims of a person to the honor and priveleges of a Christian are defective, till he has put on Christ by being baptized in his name (p. 59) …They had heard the gospel, believed in Jesus, been baptized in his name, and were united in holy fellowship (p.193) …Perhaps thou hast obtained mercy, yet hast not made that public profession of it which Christ requires, by being baptized in his name.” The Primitive Church Magazine (1841) p. 10, 11, 59, 193, 269Actually this is 1841 and 1842.
privileges should be corrected to privileges.

None of these men had any known doubts about the words of Matthew, and when they refer to 28:19 they give the traditional pure Bible text. How they actually baptized would take more study.

From the same publication:

"When they said that they had“ not so much as heard whether there was any Holy Ghost,” he immediately inquired, “ Unto (or into) what then were ye baptized?” referring, as it would seem, to the formula given by our Lord, “ baptizing them in (or into) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost or, at least, to the promise of the Spirit, as a part of the faith into which both the disciples of John and of Jesus were baptized, and of which baptism in water was from the first spoken of as the symbol.. p. 56 - 1842
https://books.google.com/books?id=xnwBAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA56

The same sense will be given, however, if eis be rendered into; it would still refer to the profession which baptism ratified ; as in Matt, xxviii. 9, Baptizing them into (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Iloly Ghost,” evidently means into professed faith, and obedience to that name. p. 67 - 1842
https://books.google.com/books?id=xnwBAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA67

On p. 277 we see that it is drawn from Matthew 28:19 as well as Acts.

Is the ordinance of less importance now, than when our Lord commanded his disciples to go forth into all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them,—baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Did not the apostles strictly attend to the sacred injunction? Can we think that Peter did not most strenuously urge the necessity of water baptism, as practised by John, when the "three thousand were pricked to the heart,” referring them to the words above quoted, that the promise was to them and to their children, &c.—Matthew xxviii. 19, 20?
https://books.google.com/books?id=xnwBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA277

Robert William Overbury, (1812-1868) was involved with these Primitive Baptists and this publication and has a book on:

The Jesuits (1948)
https://books.google.com/books?id=SjAEAAAAQAAJ

[Evang.Benincasa]

“Many believed their doctrine, professed allegiance to Jesus Christ, by being baptized in his name…Own dear reader, the justice of your condemnation; forsake your sins; confess your guild in having so long despised and disesteemed the only saviour; be immersed in his name for the remission of your sins through his blood:…So the claims of a person to the honor and priveleges of a Christian are defective, till he has put on Christ by being baptized in his name…They had heard the gospel, believed in Jesus, been baptized in his name, and were united in holy fellowship…Perhaps thou hast obtained mercy, yet hast not made that public profession of it which Christ requires, by being baptized in his name.” The Primitive Church Magazine (1841) p. 10, 11, 59, 193, 269

FZ, now your argument is that your opposition doesn’t believe in Jesus name baptism? Seriously? FZ, where is the above writer stating that Matthew 28:19 as it is worded in our Bibles is an insertion? I can’t see that, maybe you would be gracious enough to point it out? For the record, the title of this thread is concerning the Matthew 28:19 verse as it appears in our Bibles to be a Greek fabrication. Yet NOW you are changing the argument to claim all who oppose you don’t believe in Jesus name baptism? Read this real close, I have NEVER, EVER, baptized anyone or anything in titles father, son, or Holy Ghost. So, maybe you can stay on task with your original premise. Matthew 28:19 never posed a problem for me to PROVE Jesus name baptism is correct, or that Jesus is ONE GOD. Unless you don’t believe Jesus was God fully?

So, now that I stated my position on Jesus name baptism, and One God. Maybe you can prove how Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew. How Matthew 28:19 was the ONLY VERSE which was tampered.

Thank you in advance for your time.

[FlamingZword]

In 1844 AD August Wilhelm Neander, The Father of History Church (1789-1850) in History of the planting and training of the Christian Church by the Apostles writes: “In baptism, entrance into communion with Christ appears to have been the essential point; thus persons were united to the spiritual body of Christ and received into the communion of the redeemed, the church of Christ. Hence Baptism according to its characteristic marks, was designated a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, as the acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah was the original article of faith in the Apostolic church, and this (Baptism in the name of Jesus) was probably the most ancient formula of baptism, which was still made use of even in the third Century.”

If it was the most ancient formula, it means it preceded the trinitarian baptismal formula.

[Evang.Benincasa]

In 1844 AD August Wilhelm Neander, The Father of History Church (1789-1850) in History of the planting and training of the Christian Church by the Apostles writes: “In baptism, entrance into communion with Christ appears to have been the essential point; thus persons were united to the spiritual body of Christ and received into the communion of the redeemed, the church of Christ. Hence Baptism according to its characteristic marks, was designated a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, as the acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah was the original article of faith in the Apostolic church, and this (Baptism in the name of Jesus) was probably the most ancient formula of baptism, which was still made use of even in the third Century.”

If it was the most ancient formula, it means it preceded the trinitarian baptismal formula.

FZ, so you actually ran out of things to say about spurious verses? So, now you are going to tell us things we already know? What happened about you proving the original thought of the thread? Not going to happen? Too difficult? Translated your own Bible with the traditional Matthew wording missing for nothing? So now you will end your part (in a thread you started) by telling us that Jesus name baptism is how Apostolic’s baptized. Very good, we all agree. Where we don’t agree is that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, that the original wording of Matthew 28:19 is a fabrication of Greek scribes, and that we have to take Sharpie markers to our Bibles to remove verses we cannot explain. FZ, it looks like the problem is that you don’t believe JESUS is the NAME of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That my friend is the bigger problem here.

[Steven Avery]

In 1844 AD August Wilhelm Neander, The Father of History Church (1789-1850) in History of the planting and training of the Christian Church by the Apostles writes: “In baptism, entrance into communion with Christ appears to have been the essential point; thus persons were united to the spiritual body of Christ and received into the communion of the redeemed, the church of Christ. Hence Baptism according to its characteristic marks, was designated a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, as the acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah was the original article of faith in the Apostolic church, and this (Baptism in the name of Jesus) was probably the most ancient formula of baptism, which was still made use of even in the third Century.”

If it was the most ancient formula, it means it preceded the trinitarian baptismal formula. Not according to August Neander, the very man you are sort of quoting.

History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church: By the Apostles, Volume 1 (1842)
August Neander
https://books.google.com/books?id=QVcNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA25

Hence baptism at this period, in its peculiar Christian meaning, referred to this one article of faith, which constituted the essence of Christianity, as baptism into Jesus, into the name of Jesus; it was the holy rite which sealed the connection with Jesus as the Messiah. From this signification of baptism, we cannot indeed, conclude with certainty, that there was only one form of baptism. Still, it is probable, that in the original apostolic formula, no reference was made except to this one article. This shorter baptismal formula contains in itself every thing which is further developed in the words used by Christ at the institution of baptism, but which he did not intend to establish as an exact formula; the reference to God, who has revealed and shewn himself in and by the Son, as a Father; and to the Spirit of the Father, whom Christ imparts to believers as the new spirit one article of faith included, therefore, the whole of Christian doctrine. August Neander had a far better understanding of the Bible harmony of Matthew and Acts than does FZ.

[diakonos]

This is a sad thread.

[Evang.Benincasa]

This is a sad thread.


What part?

[Steven Avery]

This is a sad thread. I've considered it an informative thread.

[FlamingZword]

In 1851 Professor of Biblical Criticism Edmund Turney (1816-1872) wrote in Baptism in the Import and explicitness of the command, p. 7, 10 “This transaction (baptism) is to be observed in the name of Christ, in profession of faith in him, and of conformity to his death and resurrection; and it is its design as thus explained, which invests it with its distinctive character as a Christian rite. “; “is it conceivable that our Lord should have sent forth his disciples among the various Gentile nations using the Greek language in the Roman empire, with the proclamation that they should "repent," and in his name " be baptized"”

[Scott Pitta]

Nice quote. But it tells us nothing about the textual transmission of the Greek text of Mt. 28:19.

[Steven Avery]

In 1851 Professor of Biblical Criticism Edmund Turney (1816-1872) wrote in Baptism in the Import and explicitness of the command, p. 7, 10 “This transaction (baptism) is to be observed in the name of Christ, in profession of faith in him, and of conformity to his death and resurrection; and it is its design as thus explained, which invests it with its distinctive character as a Christian rite. “; “is it conceivable that our Lord should have sent forth his disciples among the various Gentile nations using the Greek language in the Roman empire, with the proclamation that they should "repent," and in his name " be baptized"” That quote is a bit confusing, since it seems to be contra the very idea of repentance and baptism being taught by Jesus for the Gentiles after his resurrection. Cornelius, anyone?

As for Edmund (also Edward) Turney, (1816-1871), who published hymns, including baptism hymns, his more well known book on baptism, originally published in 1847, is online.

The scriptural law of baptism, or the design of baptism presented and applied, leading to an examination of its form, its subjects, its authority, and its relative position
Edmund Turney
https://books.google.com/books?id=jzFOAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA23

The reason is thus obvious for administering baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An acknowledgement of the doctrine of the Trinity as holding a conspicuous place in the revelation of the gospel, is implied in a simple profession of faith in Christ.; while in a confession of indebtedness to divine interposition for the remission of sin, and the renewal of the heart, the office and work and claims of each of the persons in the Trinity, are brought definitely and prominently to view. The subjects of baptism profess their allegiance to the Father as their Creator and Sovereign, their reception of the Son as their Lord and Redeemer, and their submission to the Holy Spirit as their Guide and Helper and Sanctifier.

(related material on p. 165 and p. 192)

While Turney may have a more sensible conception of baptism than many of today's Baptists, he is not strong on our questions here.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I've considered it an informative thread.

FZ, stopped defending his original point that the traditional Matthew 28:19 is spurious. Now he just wants to post that we need to baptize in Jesus name. Wonderful. Dearest readers, what you are witnessing here is FZ, ran out of a strong argument.

[Steven Avery]

FZ, stopped defending his original point that the traditional Matthew 28:19 is spurious. Now he just wants to post that we need to baptize in Jesus name. Wonderful. Dearest readers, what you are witnessing here is FZ, ran out of a strong argument.My perspective, just enjoy the learning experience about various writers and beliefs.

The claims of FZ are clearly irrelevant, but that does not mean we shouldn't learn more about the baptism and interpretation history.

[Evang.Benincasa]

My perspective, just enjoy the learning experience about various writers and beliefs.

The claims of FZ are clearly irrelevant, but that does not mean we shouldn't learn more about the baptism and interpretation history.

Yes, and it looks as FZ totally understands the weakness of his claims. But he has supplied some good resources of those who believed Biblical baptism was to be performed in Jesus name. That I applaud. Yet, there is no sound proof for the traditional rendering of Matthew 28:19 to be a scribal error or insertion. Also no solid proof for a Hebrew/Aramaic original New Testament.

[Scott Pitta]

Steve is right. The quotes are interesting.

FZ does do his homework.

[Steven Avery]

Steve is right. The quotes are interesting.
FZ does do his homework. Not really. He never says if it is his reference, or one he got elsewhere. His information is selectively spotty, which is why on virtually every reference he is hiding major aspects. However, whatever the actual origin, it does encourage us to research our Christian heritage!

Keep in mind that this idea of recrafting the Bible has infected oneness circles.

There are actually 3 distinct major problems that come to mind.

1) the general confusions of the Westcott-Hort recension and modern versions
2) the yahweh infestation (which largely took over at Homestead Heritage, and has affected many to various degrees.)
3) the Matthew 28:19 specialty rewrite attempt

For a little while I was frustrated with dealing with FZ, when I realized that we can turn it for good, I just enjoyed the ride.

Romans 8:28 (AV)
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,
to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Many folks on this forum are working with (1) to various degrees. (2) is incredibly important, and I implore you to really accept Jehovah and reject all the yahweh stuff, at least give it very sincere study. (3) is limited, but it is the same type of Bible correction problem.

[FlamingZword]

In 1855 professor of theology Baron Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) in his History of the Christian Church writes that up till 100 AD “Baptism as an initiatory rite was performed simply in the name of Jesus”. He states that from 100-312 AD the Roman Church, recognized the validity of all baptisms. And mentioned that the Marcionists (who baptized in the name of Jesus) existed until the 6th century.

[Steven Avery]

In 1855 professor of theology Baron Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) in his History of the Christian Church writes that up till 100 AD “Baptism as an initiatory rite was performed simply in the name of Jesus”. He states that from 100-312 AD the Roman Church, recognized the validity of all baptisms. And mentioned that the Marcionists (who baptized in the name of Jesus) existed until the 6th century. Allowing that the first edition was 1834 in German and there were various translators and editions.

The footnote Hase gives for the name of Jesus quote is the scriptures:
a) Acts 2, 38. 8, 16. 10, 48; Rom. 6,3.

A History of the Christian Church (1855)
Charles Hase - Jena - 7th edition
translated by Charles E. Blumenthal, Conway P. Wing
https://books.google.com/books?id=PIUxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA41
https://archive.org/details/historyofchristi00hase/page/40

Karl August von Hase - (1800-1890)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hase

Marcion section - p. 81-83
https://books.google.com/books?id=PIUxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA81

Quote about the validity of baptisms p. 70
https://books.google.com/books?id=PIUxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA70
Note the qualification.

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

The comment about Marcion baptiing in the name of Jesus is from FZ, not Hase.
The sixth century comment might be about another group, the Ophites, on p. 80.

There was some Marcion discussion earlier in the thread.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=1556588&highlight=Marcion#post1556588

Here is a bit on Marcion and baptism, in an excellent book:

Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (2009)
Everett Ferguson (b. 1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GAdUGX5sC&pg=PA299

Ferguson makes an interesting comment on one Cyprian reference on the name of Jesus in baptism.

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

Primary sources on all this include:

Cyprian - Epistle 73
To Pompey, Against the Epistle of Stephen About the Baptism of Heretics.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050673.htm

Along with the Treatise on Rebaptism and the Tertullian sources, his Treatise on Baptism and his writing Against Marcion.

Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism
https://books.google.com/books?id=6-1YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA665
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vii.iv.i.html

Tertullian
Of Baptism
https://books.google.com/books?id=rYBaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA255

Tertullian Against Marcion
https://books.google.com/books?id=DB4ys_9FGx0C

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

Baptism Among the Early Christians (2004)
Jon Isaak
http://www.directionjournal.org/33/1/baptism-among-early-christians.html

Although there are references to baptism scattered throughout the Christian literature of the second and third centuries, “only one extant treatise from that period [ca. 200] is devoted exclusively to the subject, that of Tertullian” (Pelikan, 163). However, the most succinct statement by Tertullian on baptism actually came, not in his treatise, but in his polemic against Marcion. According to Tertullian, baptism brought four gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (Against Marcion 1.28.2 cited in Pelikan, 163). 16

Helpful, but seems like he should have added the third century Treatise on Rebaptism.

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

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

In 1855 professor of theology Baron Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) in his History of the Christian Church writes that up till 100 AD “Baptism as an initiatory rite was performed simply in the name of Jesus”. He states that from 100-312 AD the Roman Church, recognized the validity of all baptisms. And mentioned that the Marcionists (who baptized in the name of Jesus) existed until the 6th century.

Great, Jesus name baptism was used way before Azusa Street. Hooray! Tell us something we didn’t know. Anyhoo, FZ is no longer trying to prove the validity of his previous claim. That the traditional wording of Matthew 28:19 is spurious.

[Apostolic1ness]

I think Matthew 28:19 is a great scripture with the understanding it was written after the events of Acts 2 had taken place. With that in mind I think it is very clear the understanding of the Apostles was the name of Jesus.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I think Matthew 28:19 is a great scripture with the understanding it was written after the events of Acts 2 had taken place. With that in mind I think it is very clear the understanding of the Apostles was the name of Jesus.

Exactly, I received revelation on One God and Jesus name baptism because of Matthew 28:18-19. Name is singular and therefore the titles must be encompassed by that name.

[FlamingZword]

Exactly, I received revelation on One God and Jesus name baptism because of Matthew 28:18-19. Name is singular and therefore the titles must be encompassed by that name.

The German scholar Teller in Exc.2 of his edition of Burnet’s book: De Fide et officiis christianorum, Halae, 1786, p. 262, disputed the genuineness of the text.

[FlamingZword]

If they could refer to one variant reading from a Hebrew Matthew, they could refer or quote others.

If they could not read Hebrew at all, how would they know of the variant reading ?? How could they accurately quote from a manuscript they could not even read ??

Finding other variant readings from the same pericope would tell us more about the content of the Hebrew Matthew and how other phrases and words were translated.

Eusebius was one of the few who could actually read Hebrew, so yes he could read the original Hebrew text.

[FlamingZword]

"In my name" is not a baptismal phrase used in any of the great commission accounts.

Mark 16:16-17
He that believeth and is baptized...In my name


"In the name" is used by Matthew.

it was used 17 times in the Gospels

"In my name" they shall cast out demons. (Mark 16)

Everything done in Mark 1616-17 is to be done in his name, we are to do all things in his name. Jesus did not have to say.
Go ye into all the world, in my name
preach the gospel to every creature, in my name
He that believeth, in my name
is baptized, in my name
shall be saved, in my name
he that believeth not, in my name
shall be damned, in my name
and so forth

Water baptism is not mentioned by Luke.
Yes Luke did mention baptism in Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:47, Acts 19:5

So when the quote "in my name" is mentioned, what passage is being referred to ??

Unless Matthew is mentioned by name, how do we know "in my name" is a specific quote from Matthew ???

Context

See ye later.

[FlamingZword]

Flat earth, anyone?

sarcasm anyone?

[FlamingZword]

Yes, and it looks as FZ totally understands the weakness of his claims. But he has supplied some good resources of those who believed Biblical baptism was to be performed in Jesus name. That I applaud. Yet, there is no sound proof for the traditional rendering of Matthew 28:19 to be a scribal error or insertion. Also no solid proof for a Hebrew/Aramaic original New Testament.

The claims of Steven Avery are clearly irrelevant, since he is not longer part of our discussion. but that does not mean we shouldn't learn more about baptism in the name of Jesus and interpretation history.

[FlamingZword]

FZ, stopped defending his original point that the traditional Matthew 28:19 is spurious. Now he just wants to post that we need to baptize in Jesus name. Wonderful. Dearest readers, what you are witnessing here is FZ, ran out of a strong argument.

are you counting your chickens before they hatch? :)

[Steven Avery]

The German scholar Teller in Exc.2 of his edition of Burnet’s book: De Fide et officiis christianorum, Halae, 1786, p. 262, disputed the genuineness of the text. This is:

William Abraham Teller (1734-1804) ( Guillaume-Abraham )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Abraham_Teller

A rationalist, hard to tell what he really wrote, the 1786 edition is listed in Harvard and Chicago by Worldcat in the USA.

The claims of Steven Avery are clearly irrelevant, since he is not longer part of our discussion. Try not to be too delusional.

We realize you have great difficulty having any dialog about the issues, and basically you have shipwrecked any belief that we actually have the pure Bible to read. All for a mess of porridge. Nonetheless, your stumblings can be turned into our historical insight.

Eusebius was one of the few who could actually read Hebrew, so yes he could read the original Hebrew text. Eusebius worked with the Hexapla, the strength of his abilities in Hebrew is very unclear, and is discussed by Carl Umhau Wolf in his introduction to:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Onomasticon (1971) Introduction. pp. i-xl.
Carl Umhau Wolf
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_onomasticon_01_intro.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eusebius_onomasticon_01_intro.htm#The%20Onomastico n

If Eusebius knew Hebrew he did not utilize the Masoretic text, and unlike Jerome, was dependent upon the Hexapla. Some think there is use of simple Hebrew by Eusebius in the Demonstratio Evangelica but this Hebrew could also be derived from Philo and Origen. The few references in the Greek version of the Onomasticon to "in Hebrew" could all be references to Col. 1 or 2 of the Hexapla and require no great knowledge of either Hebrew language or texts. As noted above they could be glosses or a later editorial addition. The occasional etymological notations and the frequent quotations of the interpretations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion could also be accounted for in the same ways. Some of the etymologies found in the Masoretic text in Hebrew are not utilized by the Onomasticon. There are some indications of Hebrew competence, notice some of the referencing here.

8. Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms and Its Place in the Origins of Christian Biblical Scholarship
Michael J. Hollerich
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5874.8-eusebius%E2%80%99-commentary-on-the-psalms-and-its-place-in-the-origins-of-christian-biblical-scholarship-michael-j-hollerich

And one site indicated he indicated a Jewish teacher of Hebrew (which still could be rudimentary.)

If there is a good study on this question, the competence of Hebrew by Eusebius, it would be good to read. And I have an inquiry or two out to the Eusebius scholars.

[FlamingZword]

Great, Jesus name baptism was used way before Azusa Street. Hooray! Tell us something we didn’t know. Anyhoo, FZ is no longer trying to prove the validity of his previous claim. That the traditional wording of Matthew 28:19 is spurious.

Edward Evanson, vicar of Tewkesbury in his letter to Richard Hurd, Bishop of Worcester, 2nd Ed. London (1792) disputed the authenticity of the Matthean text.

[Steven Avery]

Edward Evanson, vicar of Tewkesbury in his letter to Richard Hurd, Bishop of Worcester, 2nd Ed. London (1792) disputed the authenticity of the Matthean text.

Edward Evanson (1731-1805)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Evanson
Evanson rejected most of the books of the New Testament as forgeries, and of the four gospels he accepted only the Gospel of Luke.

Here is the view of Evanson about the book of Matthew:

The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists: And the Evidence of Their Respective Authenticity, Examined; with that of Some Other Scriptures Deemed Canonical (1805)
Edward Evanson
https://books.google.com/books?id=Um9AAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA248

1 am perfectly convinced, that this Gospel was not written earlier than near The middle of the second century ; and that it is the patched-work composition of some convert from the Pagan schools. p. 248 And then comparing to Luke, and having an anti-harmony approach Evanson, says, with the emphasis on Matthew being late and pagan:

I am confident, that whoever impartially considers, that, according to Lukes histories, the Christians of the apostolic age ... cannot rationally believe both these contradictory histories, and consequently he must be satisfied that one of them is grossly fabulous and false. p. 249 Edward Evanson is a good witness against the Bible, a poor witness on any specific issue where he wants to mangle the text.

[Scott Pitta]

Claims are easy to make. Where is the proof ? Does Evanson specifically mention Mt. 28:19 ??

[Steven Avery]

And I wrote about this back in 2010:

[TC-Alternate-list] Matthew 28:19 - Unitarian "Improved Version" and Edward Evanson
Steven Avery - Sept. 26, 2010
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/3535

Hi Folks,

On one of the forums we were recently discussing the Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare "textual criticism" attack on the verse Matthew 28:19, which was followed by a number of later references.

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

An argument for exclusion based on zero manuscripts, Greek, Latin or Syriac. Largely based on a mixed Eusebius usage, despite the simple fact that numerous earlier church writers (i.e. earlier than Eusebius) have the verse in today's manner. Interestingly, this rather absurd textual argument has become quite popular on the Internet.

For context, checking the history, the Unitarian "Improved Version" had mentioned such attacks a century earlier than Conybeare.

The New Testament: in an improved version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation (1808)
Thomas Belsham et al
http://books.google.com/books?id=y4pAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73
Some have called in question the genuineness of this verse, but perhaps without sufficient authority.

A number of writers (including Edward Nares, Thomas Rennell, Charles Daubeny, Richard Laurence, John Bevans) pointed out the unbelief in scripture of the Unitarians, with even leaders like Belsham doubting the authenticity of the first chapters of Luke and Matthew. This was beyond the normal textual criticism attempts on verses like 1 Timothy 3:16 and the heavenly witnesses and the Pericope Adultera and the resurrection account in the Gospel of Mark.

This is one of the books that exposed the faulty argumentation to try to (snip) the Bible..

Remarks on the version of the New Testament edited by the Unitarians, with the title of "An improved version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation with a corrected text and notes critical and explanatory. London 1808": being a dispassionate appeal to Christians of various denominations on some of the first and most generally received doctrines of the Bible (1814)
Edward Nares
http://books.google.com/books?id=U_4UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA261
the Editors (of the Improved Version) ....informs us that some have called in question its genuineness, (and I remember
that Mr Evanson has done so) but they add, without sufficient authority

This ebionite aspect is also quite nicely discussed in the review of Nares and in the next review in the magazine of the book by Thomas Rennell ("a student in divinity").

The Antijacobin review and true churchman's magazine, Issues 159-162 (1811)
Nares on the Version of the New Testament - (review, likely by William Hales)
http://books.google.com/books?id=8QLWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA160

Returning to Matthew 28:19, outside the "Improved Version" we only have one early name mentioned, Edward Evanson, and not much detail. Evanson's Bible work was considered as almost an adjunct to the Unitarian Newcombe-Belsham attempts and he was also associated with Joseph Priestley (who declared his ebionite views directly).

Edward Evanson (21 April 1731 – 25 September 1805) was a controversial English clergyman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Evanson
.... Evanson rejected most of the books of the New Testament as forgeries, and of the four gospels he accepted only the Gospel of Luke.

(per Encyclopaedia Britannica:, (1888 and later editions)
http://books.google.com/books?id=YKIMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA727

This popular branch of Unitarianism (Priestley, Belsham, Evanson) seems to have been particularly Bible correctors and (snippers) and unbelievers .. we should be cautious in necessarily painting too broad a brush.

In terms of Bible-snipping .. later the ideas became more respectable in scholastic circles (with the majority of scholars being unbelievers) if given the heading of "textual criticism" and "higher criticism".

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Claims are easy to make. Where is the proof ? Does Evanson specifically mention Mt. 28:19 ?? Proof that Evanson considered Matthew a pagan writing of the 2nd century?

In that context Evanson contrasted Matthew with Luke in the pages above, and called the superb Gospel, the "pretended Matthew" and one of the elements was the baptism verse.

according to Luke's histories, the Christians of the apostolic age did not baptize in the terms of the form here prescribed, but simply in the name of the Lord Jesus; that his disciples were so far from knowing a watch was set round the sepulchre, that the women came early on Sun- day morning to embalm the body; and were perplexed at finding the stone rolled away, and that the body was not in the sepulchre; that a vision of two angels, in human shape, informed them he was risen, and reminded them, that it was only what he had foretold them must come to pass, long before they came to Jerusalem; that they gave them no orders to send the .Apostles into Galilee to see him ; on the contrary, that, though he did not; appear to two of the women, as the pre-tended Matthew asserts, yet he appeared that same day to Peter, at Jerusalem.; to two other disciples, as they went to Emmaus; and, the succeeding night, to the whole congregation of the disciples, not in Galilee, but at Jerusalem; and that, by his express command, the Apostles did not go into Galilee, but remained at Jerusalem till the feast of Pentecost;

As to what Evanson wrote in the letter to Richard Hurd, we do not know, but I think this Dissonance book gives a clear picture of his approach. For the Hurd book, for which the title varies (e.g. Dr. Hurd) the 2006 edition has good library access, looks like it is probably the 2nd edition.

Worldcat
A letter to the Right Reverend Richard Hurd : ... wherein the importance of the prophecies of the New Testament, and the nature of the grand apostacy predicted in them, are ... considered. By Edward Evanson, A.M.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/letter-to-the-right-reverend-richard-hurd-wherein-the-importance-of-the-prophecies-of-the-new-testament-and-the-nature-of-the-grand-apostacy-predicted-in-them-are-considered-by-edward-evanson-am/oclc/690488616&referer=brief_results

Purchase
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/a-letter-to-the-right-reverend-the-lord-bishop-of-litchfield-and-coventry-wherein-the-importance-of-the-prophecies-of-the-new-testament-and-the-nature-of-the-grand-apostacy-predicted-in-them-are-_edwa/15678536/#isbn=1170442161&idiq=21303843

[Evang.Benincasa]

Edward Evanson, vicar of Tewkesbury in his letter to Richard Hurd, Bishop of Worcester, 2nd Ed. London (1792) disputed the authenticity of the Matthean text.

FZ, do you understand that is his opinion.
Do you realize that it is different opinions from “theologians” that shred the pages of the Bible. NOT TANGIBLE EVIDENCE. See the difference.

[FlamingZword]

In 1824 the Unitarians which strongly opposed the trinity also suspected that Matthew 28:19 was an interpolation and wrote "The context reads just as smoothly, if not more so, without it than with it. The extrinsic evidence most strong against it. If such a command have been delivered by our Lord, being one of his last, it would have been regarded as a most solemn law, of the greatest importance, binding to a strict performance; yet seven out of eight of the New Testament writers have not only utterly neglected to make the least mention of it, but in all the instances of baptism they have recorded, have entirely disobeyed it themselves, or related its disobedience by others without any disapprobation; which is incredible, except on the supposition of this text being a subsequent interpolation." Letters to a Protestant Divine in defence of Unitarianism

[Steven Avery]

The more interesting section is in the body of the book:

Letters to a Protestant Divine in defence of Unitarianism (1824)
Reader Waineright
https://books.google.com/books?id=iehiAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA243
p. 243-263

He barely mentions remission of sins, but he does reference many of the verses that we study in harmony with Matthew 28:19. If you put aside his confusion and uncertainty about what is the scripture, it is an interesting read. I have not found any information about this barrister, Reader Wainewright (Wainwright).

Here is a mention:

The Gentleman's Magazine, Volume 155 (1834)
https://books.google.com/books?id=50JDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA543
Reader Waimvright, esq. of Lincoln’s Inn, barrister-at-law, was elected Fellow of the Society.

[Esaias]

Brother Avery, are you familiar with the following?

"They thought they had found a very old manuscript of the four gospels, and indeed they had. But what they could not grasp was that they had in their hands an original, First Century set of the gospels, marked with round seals by the four evangelists (or their scribe) and actually dated to the exact year by clever pictorial and alphanumeric dating system.

This parchment is known by several names: Codex Washingtonensis or Washingtonianus, Washington Codex, Freer Gospels, and Codex (sometimes spelled Kodex) W."

http://www.washington-codex.org/index.htm

[Scott Pitta]

I have never seen that quote before. Who said it ??

[Steven Avery]

Brother Avery, are you familiar with the following?
A snippet of the Lee Woodard info is placed online here:
http://www.washington-codex.org/washington_codex.htm

It seems wildly speculative in looking at some markings. Apparently you find out more if you buy a $70 book.

The authorship dates other than Matthew are very late, a bit wild.

[FlamingZword]

Commentary on Matthew (1865) p. 558 by professor of theology, John Peter Lange
Here Lange quotes Meyer, an eminent commentator, as follows: “No trace is to be found of the employment of these words (the name [titles] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) by the Apostolic Church.”

[Steven Avery]

Commentary on Matthew (1865) p. 558 by professor of theology, John Peter Lange, Here Lange quotes Meyer, an eminent commentator, as follows: “No trace is to be found of the employment of these words (the name [titles] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) by the Apostolic Church.”First, John Lange (translated in the 1863 2nd English edition, from the 1857 German edition of the Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk) was dissenting from Meyer.

Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel of St-Matthew and St-Mark, Volume 3 (1863)
Johann Peter Lange
https://books.google.com/books?id=zRBAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA135

"We must dissent from Meyer ... " To make this even worse, Lange says that Meyer was defending these as the words of Jesus properly quoted in Matthew, and Lange agreed.

Meyer, however, is right, in his opposition to De Wette, Strauss, and others, who have impugned the historical truth of this direction of Christ. In other words, Meyer was simply saying that the words in Matthew 29:19 was not a formula for baptism. To hide this from the readers, FZ omitted these words from Meyer:

“Jesus does not, assuredly, dictate the words which are to be employed in the administration of baptism."

In other words, both Meyer and Lange are fully supporting the words of Matthew 28:19 being original scripture. Lange is more towards it being a formula for baptism, while Meyer writes against that idea, so we would agree with Meyer.

As I have said, when you read FZ, none dare call this scholarship.

However, he does help us by leading us to men who wrote interesting material.

[Steven Avery]

Steve is right. The quotes are interesting.
FZ does do his homework.Be careful. We see again and again that FZ is not familiar with the primary source, and he plagiarizes from secondary sources, quoting exact words from another without attrbution.

Here is an example:

Remarkable Biblical Discovery: “The Name” of God According to the Scriptures (2009)
William Phillips Hall
https://www.apostolic.edu/remarkable-biblical-discovery-the-name-of-god-according-to-the-scriptures/

And this was published in 1929, here you can see the original page:

Remarkable Biblical Discovery: “The Name” of God According to the Scriptures (2009)
William Phillips Hall
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39076005057380;view=1up;seq=69

Lange’s “Commentary on Matthew” (p. 558) quotes Meyer, an eminent commentator, as follows: “No trace is to be found of the employment of these words [“the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”] by the Apostolic Church.”

We can easily see that this got passed down to FZ, who gave us without attribution:

Commentary on Matthew (1865) p. 558 by professor of theology, John Peter Lange
Here Lange quotes Meyer, an eminent commentator, as follows: “No trace is to be found of the employment of these words (the name [titles] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) by the Apostolic Church.”

title page
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39076005057380;view=1up;seq=1

Note that William Phillips Hall (1864-1937) did not dispute the authenticity of the words in Matthew 28:19, the section is titled:

THE ORIGINAL APOSTOLIC INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS,
“THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT”.

Hall co-authored (compiled) a hymnal:
Christian Hymns No. 1
https://archive.org/details/christi00chap/page/n4
https://books.google.com/books?id=K_YkKiwlaHIC
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044073509390;view=1up;seq=6

And it looks like his book was reprinted recently in some manner as:
The Name of God
https://www.amazon.com/What-Name-William-Phillips-Hall/dp/1376011751
https://www.amazon.com/What-name-William-Phillips-Hall/dp/1178187632

What Is "the Name"? : Or "the Mystery of God" Revealed (Classic Reprint)
Forgotten Books
https://www.bookdepository.com/What-Is-Name-William-Phillips-Hall/9781331693529

[Scott Pitta]

Steve, your analytical work is appreciated.

Ideally, we would all have a large theological library, and the time, to read and think ourselves full. Sadly, this is not the case.

A snippet of a quote can easily be taken out of context. Or, it can be assigned value the author did not intend.

[Steven Avery]

Steve, your analytical work is appreciated. Ideally, we would all have a large theological library, and the time, to read and think ourselves full. Sadly, this is not the case. A snippet of a quote can easily be taken out of context. Or, it can be assigned value the author did not intend. Yep. We have seen seen many little quote tricks. Including simply accepting a secondary or tertiary source and not even checking the primary source. And holding back the salient information.

Or, even if essentially accurate, the quote can be of little value.

Many of the scholarly opponents of the traditional text are liberals and unbelievers, often from the German schools. This includes men who deny the resurrection, or who would snip not just the phrase in 28:19 but a whole section of verses, or even who believe that Matthew is a late forgery anyway.

[Steven Avery]

For the record, here are the four AFF threads I have bookmarked.

Is Matt. 28:19 Jesus Words? - 18 pages - 2013-2014
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=45082

Scholars find Matt.28:19 to be fraudulent- 8 pages - 2014-2016
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=46039

The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored - 30 pages - 2015-2018
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=48024

Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending - 22 pages - 2018-2019 (active)
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52712

Earlier on the Good News Cafe - courtesy of Archive.org, one is easily available.

Matt. 28:19 changed?? - 8 pages - 2007-2010 - (p. 6 and 7 missing)
https://web.archive.org/web/20101218033446/http://goodnewscafe.net/showthread.php?t=10828
Here is where I have a chunk of ECW info, and when more is added, including a review of manuscript evidences, it will be on this thread or marked on the top as a sister thread.

Pure Bible Forum
Matthew 28:19 -baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?983-Matthew-28-19-baptizing-them-in-the-name-of-the-Father-and-of-the-Son-and-of-the-Holy-Ghost

[Steven Avery]

James R. Lithgow, Oct. 1855 in The Herald is mentioned in various writings that work with A. Ploughman (or maybe Boughman, per some inquiries by Randall Duane Houghes.)

A little treat!

Here is the 1855 letter (there seems to be one earlier too, I'll search, however it does not seem to be published in the 1854 or 1855 Herald). This looks to be a Christadelphian publication.

The Herald of the Kingdom, Oct 1855 issue, p. 232
http://literature.christadelphianresources.com/Thomas/Herald/Volume%205.PDF

Anolecta Episiolaria.
Work Cut Out for Slack Times.

My Dear and Respected Brother:
— Have you overlooked my queries? You promised last winter to attend to them.

No. 1. Is prayer to Christ scriptural ?

No. 2. Is not a person "baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of »he Holy Spirit,” when he is “baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ?” It appears to me somewhat strange that the former “formula" is but once mentioned, whereas the iatter, or words nearly equivalent, occur in many places: and, indeed, you never read of a person being baptized in, or into, any other name than the name of Jesus. His name, therefore, it seems to me, is the “name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” into which believers are commanded to be baptized. It is not clear to my mind how a man can be said to have been baptized into, in, or by, the name of Jesus Christ, when the name of Jesus does not occur in the words spoken at his baptism.

...

James R.. Lithgow.
Halifax. Nova Scotia, May 28, 1855: Very well written, and in 1855!

[FlamingZword]

Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (1867) by Roberts, Alexander Rev. and James Donaldson. “Justin Martyr expanded the biblical baptismal formula to “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”

[Steven Avery]

Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (1867) by Roberts, Alexander Rev. and James Donaldson. “Justin Martyr expanded the biblical baptismal formula to “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit” Justin Martyr expanded the normal Matthew 28:19, he added God and Lord of the Universe to the Father, and expanded Son to "our Saviour Jesus Christ." This expansion is discussed in a few spots.

Once again, though, you are plagiarizing secondary sources and giving errant references.
There is no record of this being an 1867 commentary (it sounds recent.)

Here is the page that is referenced from the 1867 edition.

Ante-Nicene Christian Library; Translations Of The Writings Of The Fathers Down To A.D. 325,
Volume 2: Justin Martyr and Athenagoras (1867)
https://archive.org/details/AnteNiceneChristianLibraryV02/page/n71

As to who made the "expanded the biblical baptismal formula.." comment, and when, that remains a puzzle. Likely after 2,000 from one of the folks who want to mangle the Bible.

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

And here is the reference on PBF:

Pure Bible Forum
Matthew 28:19 -baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?983-Matthew-28-19-baptizing-them-in-the-name-of-the-Father-and-of-the-Son-and-of-the-Holy-Ghost

JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 150 AD)

First Apology of Justin 61.3
https://books.google.com/books?id=fyUMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183 1885 edition
https://archive.org/details/AnteNiceneChristianLibraryV02/page/n71 1867 edition
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxi.html

Chapter LXI.-Christian Baptism.

Then they are brought by us where there is water,
and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.

For, in the name of God,
the Father and Lord of the universe,
and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
and of the Holy Spirit,

they then receive the washing with water.
For Christ also said,
"Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[Steven Avery]

An 1895 compilation of references is in German by Alfred Resch, this might add to the large list of early references that are on the second post of the PBF page.

German research assistance would be very helpful!

Pure Bible Forum
Matthew 28:19 -Ante-Nicene referencing (before Eusebius) - the Ehrman textual criticism discussion
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?983-Matthew-28-19-Ante-Nicene-referencing-(before-Eusebius)-the-Ehrman-textual-criticism-discussion

Alfred Resch Research

Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien:
[1. Heft] Textkritische und quellenkritische Grundlegungen.
[2. Heft] Paralleltexte zu Matthaeus und Marcus (1897)
[url]https://books.google.com/books?id=CZMRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA393

Haithi Trust - (pull out the Matthew and Mark section for another copy like the Google pages)
Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien / gesammelt und untersucht von Alfred Resch.
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001680492
Alfred Resch (1835-1912)
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Resch%2C%20Alfred%2C%201835%2D1912

Four Matthew 28:19 sections, Turner indicated 14 pages are early references, possibly 398 to 412.
Matthew 28:19a is an earlier part of the verse.

p. 393-397 - Matthew 28:19a - a parallel with Mark 16:15
p. 398-406
p. 407-412 - heretical parallels - Turner emphasizes that even those with unusual doctrines accepted the pure Bible text
p. 413-427 More Resch writings, including the Logia.
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Search/Home?lookfor=Resch,%20Alfred,%201835-1912.&type=author&inst=

John Turner Marshall (1850-1923) describes the Resch writing on Matthew 28:19

Criticial Review (1895)
http://books.google.com/books?id=qExKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA42
https://archive.org/stream/criticalreviewt09salmgoog#page/n50/mode/2up

Archived and added to at:

PureBibleForum ( PBF)
Alfred Resch in 1895 compiles early ECW refeernces
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?983-Matthew-28-19-Ante-Nicene-referencing-(before-Eusebius)-the-Ehrman-textual-criticism-discussion&p=2255#post2255

[FlamingZword]

Bibel-lexikon: Realwörterbuch zum Handgebrauch für Geistliche und Gemeindeglieder (G) Bible Encyclopedia: Real Dictionary for Hand-held Use for Clergy and Church Members (1869) by Daniel Schenkel, says: “As for the question of the authenticity, that point betrays it all, so we must have the same already doubt on the ground that in the apostolic age not one used this baptism on those three names” (Rom. 6:3; Gal 3:27, Acts 2:38; 8, 16, see also Wittichen in the "Annals of German theology", VII, 336)

[Steven Avery]

Bibel-lexikon: Realwörterbuch zum Handgebrauch für Geistliche und Gemeindeglieder (G) Bible Encyclopedia: Real Dictionary for Hand-held Use for Clergy and Church Members (1869) by Daniel Schenkel, says: “As for the question of the authenticity, that point betrays it all, so we must have the same already doubt on the ground that in the apostolic age not one used this baptism on those three names” (Rom. 6:3; Gal 3:27, Acts 2:38; 8, 16, see also Wittichen in the "Annals of German theology", VII, 336) Daniel Schenkel (1813-1885)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Schenkel

was a bit of an unbeliever flake. He is referenced quite a bit here:

ARTICLE VII.
The Present Attitude of Evangelical Christianity Towards The Prominent Forms of Assault
Samuel Colcord. Bartlett, D.D. (1817-1898)
Professor in Chicago Theological Seminary
https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bsac/1868_152_bartlett.pdf

Here is the publication.

BibelLexicon Realwörterbuch zum Handgebrauch für Geistliche und Gemeindeglieder (1869)
by Daniel Schenkel
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011538648 (3 volumes)
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_2O08AAAAcAAJ/page/n4
https://books.google.com/books/about/Bibel_Lexicon.html?id=su08AAAAcAAJ

Can you find the page? It looks like you are giving us a mangled English translation.

What secondary source did you use?
Copying a bibliography entry, without attribution, as if it was your own research, is still plagiarism.

And how about the real name of the Ferdinand Karl Wittichen (1832-1882) publication? And the date and page, or title of the article. That looks like an English translation of the publication name. What did he say?

Thanks!

[FlamingZword]

The Theological Workbook of the Bible (1873) p. 29 by R. R. (Ronald Ralph) Williams says: "Early baptism was in the name of Christ"

[Steven Avery]

The Theological Workbook of the Bible (1873) p. 29 by R. R. (Ronald Ralph) Williams says: "Early baptism was in the name of Christ" This reference is a doozy, more secondary sources and plagiarism problems.

Sometimes it is given longer, like this:

WILLIAMS R.R. The command to baptize in Ma. 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism suggests that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference.
–Theological Wordbook of the Bible, p. 29. However, we are a century off.

Ronald Ralph Williams (bishop) - (1906-1979)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Williams_(bishop)

And the book is not found. Maybe a different name?

Maybe the first reference is:

The Voice... (2005)
Oneil McQuick
https://books.google.com/books?id=J4fZeuyXWXEC&pg=PA78

[FlamingZword]

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.”

[Scott Pitta]

Yet he offers no proof. You can quote the man in the moon, Atilla the Hun, George Washington and the 3 stooges.

But unless they have manuscript evidence, it is nothing more than theological conjecture.

[Steven Avery]

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.”Renan saw the Gospels as very late writings:

The Life of Jesus (1864)
Ernest Renan
https://books.google.com/books?id=yRNKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA13

The last work of compilation, at least of the text which bears the name of Matthew, appears to have been done in one of the countries situated at the north-east of Palestine, such as Gaulonitis, Auranitis, Batanea, where many Christians took refuge at the time of the Roman war, where were found relatives of Jesus even in the second century, and where the first Galilean tendency was longer preserved than in other parts. p. 13

Neither was there any theology or creed. There were indefinite views respecting the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, from which, afterwards, were drawn the Trinity and the Incarna tion, but they were then only in a state of indeterminate imagery p. 213.

While Renan was very liberal he seems to have considered Matthew's words as authentic:

Jesus Christ: a reply to m. Renan [in his Vie de Jésus] (1868)
Auguste Joseph Alphonse Gratry
https://books.google.com/books?id=vOACAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA24

In the Gospel of St. Matthew, according to M. Renan, the only exact and authentic record of the discourses of Jesus, we find Him saying :
"Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” Matt, xxviii. 19.

Matthew 28:19, Eusebius, and the lex orandi (1989)
H. Benedict Green
https://books.google.com/books?id=QIBGrDFGFv8C&pg=PA12
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/making-of-orthodoxy/matthew-2819-eusebius-and-the-lex-orandi/E31F7A47D42B4A4EF33BBFBB74E22706

Renan had nowhere implied that the hand that planted the seed of Trinitarian dogma in the gospel, whatever its cultic background, was any but the evangelist's own;

The Renan French of the 1877 book is here:

Les Évangiles et la seconde génération chrétienne : (1877)
Ernst Renan
https://archive.org/details/lesvangilesetl05rena/page/196

Basically, Renan was basically saying that people erred later in using the Matthew words as a a formula

[FlamingZword]

St Matthew’s Gospel with the Parallel Passages by “James Stark” published in 1878. Stark was fiercely anti-trinitarian and believed in absolute monotheism, he said: “…These and other passages prove that Matthew’s formula for baptism has no support from other sacred writers and cannot therefore been spoken by Jesus” “James Stark” is a Pseudonym; he was a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh; only highly distinguish individuals can become a fellow of this selective science society; perhaps “James Stark” was the Rev. Philip Kelland or the Rev. George Laing.

[FlamingZword]

Yet he offers no proof. You can quote the man in the moon, Atilla the Hun, George Washington and the 3 stooges.

But unless they have manuscript evidence, it is nothing more than theological conjecture.

The quotes are from people who have many years of study.
some of them are doctors in theology and others are actually teachers in religious universities.

I am not citing my local barber, my neighbor or any of the stooges, I am citing from learned individuals.

[Scott Pitta]

But theories require facts. Hard data. Evidence.

There is no manuscript evidence of a variant reading for Mt. 28:19. Not one Greek manuscript for support.

No, not one.

[FlamingZword]

But theories require facts. Hard data. Evidence.

There is no manuscript evidence of a variant reading for Mt. 28:19. Not one Greek manuscript for support.

No, not one.

But also there is no manuscript Greek or otherwise of the traditional reading of Mt 28:19 earlier that the Codex Vaticanus (325 -350 AD)

No, not one.

So nobody has any Hard data or evidence whatsoever that the original MS had the trinitarian phrase.

[FlamingZword]

The article “Die Taufe im Neue Testament,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologische (G) (“Baptism in the New Testament,” Journal for Scientific Theology) (1879) p. 401 by Theologian Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, calls Matthew 28:19 apocryphal and does not consider it valid.

[Scott Pitta]

Dating NT Greek manuscripts, especially the early ones, is beyond my skill. I have a preference for papri 45. It is early. Not sure how early.

The entire premise of your argument lacks the necessary element. A Greek manuscript of Matthew with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19.

[Steven Avery]

The article “Die Taufe im Neue Testament,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologische (G) (“Baptism in the New Testament,” Journal for Scientific Theology) (1879) p. 401 by Theologian Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, calls Matthew 28:19 apocryphal and does not consider it valid. The title is sometimes listed as - Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft.

The publication is online here:

Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologische
Die Taufe im Neue Testament,
H. Holtzmann
https://books.google.com/books?id=3FUtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA401

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

To get a fix on the wild unbelieving views of the German scholars of this era, one good resource is:

The sacraments in the New Testament (1903)
John Chisholm Lambert (1857-1917)
https://books.google.com/books?id=F1IVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA40

"Holtzmann and his school"

Now Lambert himself accepts some liberal textual stuff, he does not defend the Mark ending or the heavenly witnesses. Nonetheless he has good insights on the mostly German liberal scholars.

You learn that they wanted to be surgeons (p. 47) chopping out textual sections. Removing our precious words in Matthew 28:19 were just one part of how they wanted to mangle the Matthew ending.

Maybe I will include a few sections but much of the book is a good read.

For our discussions, the whole Lecture II starting on p. 36, especially to about p. 63, also p. 79. Then a bit more on p. 234-239.

[FlamingZword]

Dating NT Greek manuscripts, especially the early ones, is beyond my skill. I have a preference for papri 45. It is early. Not sure how early.

The entire premise of your argument lacks the necessary element. A Greek manuscript of Matthew with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19.

Papyrus 45 is from 250 AD, It is at the Chester Beatty Library repository, in Dublin, Ireland. It Reference is BP I, and it contains up to Matthew chapter 26, it lacks chapter 27 and chapter 28. So this papyrus can not say anything about Mt. 28.19.

[FlamingZword]

Christian Institutions by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Dean of Westminster (1881): “Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which Baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only” (p. 13).
“It is not certain that in early times this [Triadic] formula was in use.”

[Steven Avery]

Christian Institutions by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Dean of Westminster (1881): “Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which Baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only” (p. 13).
“It is not certain that in early times this [Triadic] formula was in use.”We would agree with all this, let's give more context. (The page is 12, followed by 267-268.)

Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (1815-1881)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Penrhyn_Stanley

Christian Institutions: Essays on Ecclesiastical Subjects - (1882) 3rd edition
Arthur Penrhyn Stanley
https://books.google.com/books?id=blcXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA14-IA12

And this was further impressed upon them by the name in which they were baptised. It was, if not always, yet whenever we hear of its use in the Acts of the Apostles, in the name of the ‘Lord Jesus' 8 Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which Baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only.

8 Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x. 48. The form ‘ In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’ though found in early times, was not universal. Cyprian first and Pope Nicholas I. afterwards acknowledged the validity of Baptism 'In the name of the Lord Jesus.’ See Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. i. p. 162. - p. 12

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

https://books.google.com/books?id=blcXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA267

the two Creeds ... the framework on which they are formed. That framework is the simple expression of faith used in the Baptism of the early Christians. It is taken from the First Gospel,4 and it consists of ‘ the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.’

4 It is not certain that in early times this formula was in use. The first profession of belief was only in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts ii. 38, viii. 12, 16, x. 48, xix. 6). In later times, Cyprian (Ep. Ixxiii.), the Council of Frejus, and Pope Nicholas the First acknowledge the validity of this form. Still it soon superseded the profession of belief in Jesus Christ, and in the second century had become universal. (See Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, i. 162.) - (footnote p. 267-268)

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

This was published for two centuries!
(The url goes to the same quote, it is all the Arthur Penrhyn Stanley article.

The Nineteenth Century
https://books.google.com/books?id=jZ5EAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA692

The Twentieth Century, Volume 6
https://books.google.com/books?id=pjNaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA692

[Scott Pitta]

Without manuscript evidence to support your hypothesis, it remains pious conjecture.

It is all talk until someone produces a Greek manuscript with a variant reading that supports your theory.

Let me know when such a Greek manuscript of Matthew surfaces.

[FlamingZword]

Without manuscript evidence to support your hypothesis, it remains pious conjecture.

It is all talk until someone produces a Greek manuscript with a variant reading that supports your theory.

Let me know when such a Greek manuscript of Matthew surfaces.

Maybe you will be waiting for a long time, for have you considered that the original Matthew was written in Hebrew.
and it was changed when it was translated into Greek, so therefore all Greek copies would contain this translation?

Stop getting hang up on Greek, Jesus was a Hebrew, a Jew, and neither him nor any of his apostles were Greeks and it is highly unlikely that those Galilean fisherman knew Greek, maybe a few did, but there is no gospel written by Phillip [A Greek name], unless you count The Gospel of Philip, which by the way does mention baptism in his name.

“Those who will be baptized go down into the water. But Christ, by coming out of the water, will consecrate it, so that they who have received the baptism in his name may be perfect.”

So you wanted Greek, I give you the Greek citation from Phillip.
"baptism in his name"

[FlamingZword]

The Christian Ordinances (1883) written by Doctor of Divinity Christian Henry Forney. In Ch. 10 Dr. Forney discusses at length Mathew 28:19 he was highly skeptical of its authenticity, he also tells of how the corruption of texts including this one could have occurred in the early centuries.

[Scott Pitta]

We have no Greek manuscripts with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19.

There are no early Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew.

Until those 2 facts change, "pious conjecture" is the end result of your research.

[Steven Avery]

It is all talk until someone produces a Greek manuscript with a variant reading that supports your theory. We have literally thousands of Greek, Latin, Syriac and versional manuscripts with the pure Bible text.

Why would it matter if a few mss. showed up with a corrupt reading?

Maybe you are talking about first or second century mss? Autographed by Matthew?

Steven

[Steven Avery]

The Christian Ordinances (1883) written by Doctor of Divinity Christian Henry Forney. In Ch. 10 Dr. Forney discusses at length Mathew 28:19 he was highly skeptical of its authenticity, he also tells of how the corruption of texts including this one could have occurred in the early centuries.Have you read the Forney book?
I doubt it, as I do not see quotes that match up to your claims.

The Christian Ordinances: Being a Historical Inquiry Into the Practice of Trine Immersion, the Washing of the Saints' Feet and the Love-feast (1883)
Christian Henry Forney
https://books.google.com/books?id=W_ErAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA78

There is a bit of discussion of Matthew 28:19 on p. 82.

[Scott Pitta]

Steve, I agree. If a Hebrew Matthew autograph surfaces, we have something to discuss. If there were manuscripts with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19, we would have data to sort out.

Lacking both, there is little to discuss.

When there is rock solid evidence for the reading we have for this passage, why second guess it with literally no evidence at all ?

[Steven Avery]

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.” And I doubt that you ever looked at this work, and once again it looks like plagiarism:

The only quote is from a footnote in:

Baptism in the New Testament (2006)
By G. R. Beasley-Murray
https://books.google.com/books?id=9rVLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA77

given by you without attribution.
And you should indicate who you are quoting.
For real context you would need to go to the book which has the dissertation.

"Im Namen Jesu", eine sprach-und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe, Inaugural-Dissertation...
Wilhelm Heitmüller
https://books.google.com/books?id=-5oksE6l0RoC&pg=PA270

Heitmüller actually questions a number of verses, but he does make some interesting points as well.

Before getting into the fascinating positive points, let me ask you for your source for:

a) calls Matthew 28:19 spurious
b) argues from linguistics that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt
c) only linguistic text that would be correct is “in the name of Jesus.”

Even if all this is a secondary source, you should indicate the source. And I am concerned that you do not even have a secondary source for the three snippets.

Also, if he calls the whole section ot the end of Matthew "spurious" (or probably spurious) that is very different than simply highlighting the one verse, or part of the verse. Scholastically, you would have to point out precisely what he questions.

Thanks!

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

Heitmüller has two other books that center largely on baptism.

One, in 1903, looks at Paul.

Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus: Darstellung und religionsgeschichtliche Beleuchtung
https://archive.org/details/taufeundabendma00heitgoog/page/n6

The other might have more material on our studies.

Taufe und Abendmahl im Urchristentum (1911)
https://archive.org/details/MN41701ucmf_13/page/n1

Wikipedia titles it as ("Baptism and Eucharist of the Apostolic Age')
which looks a little loose :) .

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

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Heitmüller actually questions a number of verses, but he does make some interesting points as well. Before getting into the fascinating positive points... A review in Methodist Review discusses how important the actual name of Jesus may be.

Methodist Review
https://books.google.com/books?id=0tkWAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA818

"inner connection with Jesus .. real, mystical, and mysterious effect, such as exorcism of evil spirits, consecration, bestowing the Holy Spirit, union of the baptized with Jesus, and the like."

And how about remission of sins?

Somewhat similar here.

‘Into the Name of Jesus’: A Suggestion Concerning the Earliest Meaning of the Phrase (1974)
Lars Hartman
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/into-the-name-of-jesus/C6461710AF44320E20C76210A1885A0E

It does look like Heitmüller is acknowledging power in the name of Jesus! :) And that water baptism in Jesus name is a major element.

[Steven Avery]

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. More problems of not having read the section, misrepresentation and apparent plagiarism.

We have the 1898 edition online.
The key pages are 241-242.

A dictionary of the Bible; dealing with its language, literature, and contents, including the Biblical theology
https://archive.org/details/dictionbibjames01hast/page/240
p. 238-245

Baptism - Alfred Plummer (1841–1926)

(a) The Institution of Christian baptism is to be dated from Christ's farewell command, ‘ Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ (Mt 28-19). ... But here we are at once struck by the fact that, in spite of Christ’s command to baptize into the name of the Trinity, no mention is made of the Trinity, but only of ‘ the name of Jesus Christ. ... Moreover, there is no mention in NT of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity; and the expression ‘baptized into Christ’ (Ro 6:2, Gal 3:27; comp. 1 Co l:13 6;11) is more in harmony with the passages in the Acts than with the divine command as recorded Mt 28:19. ... (4) The original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ ’ or ‘ the Lord Jesus. ’ Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development. After the one mention of it, Mt 28:19, we do not find it again until Justin Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that in the Gospel: ... It is probable that, when the Trinitarian formula had become usual, it was regarded as of divine authority, and was by some attributed to Christ Himself. This tradition is represented in Mt 28:19, and is perhaps an indication that the Firs Gospel in its extant form is later than the destruction of Jerusalem. ... It is a violent hypothesis to suppose that words of such importance as Mt 28:19 were never spoken by Christ, and yet were authoritatively attributed to Him in the First Gospel. ... the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19 is in all authorities without exception. It is as well attested as any saying of Christ which is recorded in one Gospel only. ... It is reasonable to believe that Christ prescribed the Trinitarian formula, and that His command was obeyed.

Totally different than what was represented. Most of what is given as quotes are not there. A scholastic disaster.

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

Possibly the missing quotes are in the 1963 edition. We know that FZ has not checked, since he would have quoted more accurately. If they are there, I would like to know who wrote them, since only the first quote can be attributed to Plummer, edited by Hastings and Selbie. And get the larger context.

Clearly "viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew" is simply reporting the views of Conybeare and some others. So there is nothing special in the quotes. If that had been written in 1898, it would have some interest, since the Conybeare papers came later.

[Scott Pitta]

We used Hastings Dictionary in college.

If someone is to quote from it, they should identify who wrote the individual article. They are all signed.

When people quote it without mentioning who wrote the article, I assume they have never cracked open a Hastings Dictionary. Quotes of quotes. There is nothing like pulling a book off a shelf and reading a quote in its context.

[Steven Avery]

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.Eduard Karl August Riehm - (1830-1888)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Karl_August_Riehm

More problems with plagiarism from secondary sources, used without attribution.

First, this is in Vol. 2, and the baptism section is p. 1644-1646.

Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums für gebildete Bibelleser, Volume 2 (1884)
By Eduard Karl August Riehm
https://books.google.com/books?id=21NRAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1646

The verses are given in the first column of p. 1646.

And I am skeptical about the claim that Riehm "dismisses Matthew 28:19 as not authentic". However I will defer to any of our readers who are good on the 1800s German.