Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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?

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

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.)

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

List them, please.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

I am saving this post!

:happydance

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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:

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

:smack

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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 ?

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.”

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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 ?

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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"

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.”

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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.

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

:yourock :thumbsup

Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
 

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”