Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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 ??

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

I'd like to see one.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

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.

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

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 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".

"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.

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.)

Your "scholarship" is such a mess that you omit the following from the same work:

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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."

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

"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 ???

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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 ??

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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!

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

Partial.
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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

You claimed 100+ allusions.
Simply a fabrication.

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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 ??

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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. :)

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

Flat earth, anyone?

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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 ??

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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).

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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).

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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 ??

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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 ??

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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 ??

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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)

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

So where is this list?

And why don't you list the first 10?

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've learned to never trust your scholarship.

Steven

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.