Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

Die Taufformel (G) The Baptismal Formula (1884) by theologian Johannes H. Scholten, writes: “The mutual comparison of the texts of our first three Gospels and the critical study of their age thus lead to the conclusion that the account of the institution of baptism by Jesus in the canonical Gospel of Matthew was named after a relative later date must be accepted”

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Die Taufformel (G) The Baptismal Formula (1884) by theologian Johannes H. Scholten, writes: “The mutual comparison of the texts of our first three Gospels and the critical study of their age thus lead to the conclusion that the account of the institution of baptism by Jesus in the canonical Gospel of Matthew was named after a relative later date must be accepted”

Jan Hendrik Scholten (1811-1885)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Scholten

Through Scholten, Abraham Kuenen became interested in theology; Scholten was not then the radical theologian he became later. The two scholars in course of time created a movement resembling that of the Tübingen School in Germany. From his theology there "began to rise a different type of spirit, the spirit of absolute antisupernaturalism of the German idealistic kind."

You should give the location and spot:

Die Taufformel, Volume 43; Volume 156 (1885)
Johannes Henricus Scholten
https://books.google.com/books?id=2vIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5

“Die gegenseitige Vergleichung der Texte unserer drei ersten Evangelien und die kritische Untersuchung über ihr Alter führen somit zu dem Schlusse, dass dem Bericht über die Einsetzung der Taufe durch Jesus in dem nach Matthäus benannten kanonischen Evangelium ein relativ spates Datum zuerkannt werden muss.” - p. 5

Since you have published this with the German rather than your mangled English from a puter translator.
http://www.oocities.org/fdocc3/quotations.htm

It is clear that in the reference here you plagiarized from Conybeare.
And you only worked off that secondary source.

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums, Volumes 1-2 (1900)
The Eusebian form of the Text Matth. 28,19.
By Fred. C. Conybeare, Oxford.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6-...J&pg=RA1-PA287

The Conybeare article has also been published as a separate PDF.

[Scott Pitta]

The whole issue is not touched because there is no issue. It may be a early church father issue. But it is not a TC issue.

No textual variant means it is not a TC issue.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The whole issue is not touched because there is no issue. It may be a early church father issue. But it is not a TC issue.

No textual variant means it is not a TC issue.

We have only begun this, as we progress we will see more issues raised.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

We have only begun this, as we progress we will see more issues raised.

Begun? Looks like the only thing you have proven is that you believe that Matthew isn’t authentic. That its issues aren’t simple. Could you explain why some Greek words used in Matthew cannot be translated into Hebrew without losing the meaning of the sentence? FZ, you are a translator, therefore you understand the complexity of translation. Translation is more interpretation of the individual. Hence the reason translations like the LXX, MT, Vulgate, KJV, Reina Valera needed groups, councils, more than one scholar reviewing the translation. If not, then we would have what we have here. One translator defending his own opinion of the text. We need more solid reasons with inrefutable evidence to discard a verse. Meaning, we need a little more than “I don’t think Jesus would of said that” FZ, we can line up Theologians from Dan to Beersheba, and they will debate on what they “think” Jesus said or didn’t say.
All ending up with a New Testament shredded on the floor. Jehovah Witnesses did this with their New International Version. Erases verses from the New Testament. Adding to others “in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.” By the misunderstanding of the Greek oringinal manuscript they end up losing the meaning. What you have is a ghost manuscript, one supposedly written in Hebrew. Therefore since it is a phantom you can only rely on your own whim of what that Hebrew original would read like. What is even scarier, is that you really don’t mind. Please reconsider your position. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion that something may or may not be. It is another thing to make opinions holy writ.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Begun? Looks like the only thing you have proven is that you believe that Matthew isn’t authentic.

Nope, have never said nor do I believe that Matthew isn't authentic. Do not write or assume things I have never said. Remember the commandment you shall not raise any false witness.

If I truly believed that Matthew isn't authentic, then I would simply not use it.

You are absolutely right, I have done professional translation before so I do understand the complexity of translation.

If I was a translator, translating a text from Hebrew to Greek and I saw the text in Matthew 28:19 and I understood that Jesus was the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit, then I would feel that this translation was a correct translation, which in a way it is. For Jesus is indeed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but my translation would be more of paraphrase than an authentic translation.

Some may say that this translation of the Hebrew into Greek is actually more descriptive and therefor more accurate, but I disagree.
Yes, the translation from Greek into Hebrew of Matthew 28:19 is indeed more descriptive, but it creates confusion on those who do not understand that the name of Jesus encompasses the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The translator kind of took liberties in his translation by translating his own doctrinal bias or beliefs, instead of striving for textual accuracy.

Is the translation of Matthew 28:19 from Hebrew to Greek acceptable, yes it is an acceptable translation, but it is not textually accurate, there is a difference and those who do no understand this difference might be confused about it, so at the risk of being redundant, let me say it again.

Is Matthew 28:19 translation acceptable, yes it is.
Is Matthew 28:19 translation accurate, no it is not.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Nope, have never said nor do I believe that Matthew isn't authentic. Do not write or assume things I have never said. Remember the commandment you shall not raise any false witness.

If I truly believed that Matthew isn't authentic, then I would simply not use it.

You are absolutely right, I have done professional translation before so I do understand the complexity of translation.

If I was a translator, translating a text from Hebrew to Greek and I saw the text in Matthew 28:19 and I understood that Jesus was the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit, then I would feel that this translation was a correct translation, which in a way it is. For Jesus is indeed the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but my translation would be more of paraphrase than an authentic translation.

Some may say that this translation of the Hebrew into Greek is actually more descriptive and therefor more accurate, but I disagree.
Yes, the translation from Greek into Hebrew of Matthew 28:19 is indeed more descriptive, but it creates confusion on those who do not understand that the name of Jesus encompasses the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The translator kind of took liberties in his translation by translating his own doctrinal bias or beliefs, instead of striving for textual accuracy.

Is the translation of Matthew 28:19 from Hebrew to Greek acceptable, yes it is an acceptable translation, but it is not textually accurate, there is a difference and those who do no understand this difference might be confused about it, so at the risk of being redundant, let me say it again.

Is Matthew 28:19 translation acceptable, yes it is.
Is Matthew 28:19 translation accurate, no it is not.

You need to read and digest your own writing. Matthew 28:19 is spurious but the rest of the document has not been tampered with? How do you know? You already accused the document of a falsehood. Why CAN’T there be others. Hebrew to Greek? Explain how there are verses that make no sense in Hebrew. By saying that one portion of Matthew is inaccurate it is then not authentic. To say it is a translation of a LOST translation brings also even more problems which you refuse to deal with.

[Steven Avery]

Much of this post is incomprehensible, however one point can be made, ignoring the confusing reference to translating to Hebrew.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Yes, the translation from Greek into Hebrew of Matthew 28:19 is indeed more descriptive, but it creates confusion on those who do not understand that the name of Jesus encompasses the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

What a wonderful teaching opportunity and tool.

When I was taught this truth, it was an amazing confirmation and revelation. We went carefully over every Acts baptism verse and saw the harmony with the words in Matthew. Also we studied the references in the Epistles, and appreciated every connected Bible verse.

The harmony of the Bible is there knit together to help us learn, and discern our hearts.

The mangling of Matthew 28:19 is a worthless enterprise.

[FlamingZword]

The Harmony of the Gospels Introductory Essay (1887) by Professor M. B. Riddle. Eusebius of Caesarea (died AD 340) adopted a similar set of divisions for the gospels [like Ammonius’], adding to them numbers from 1 to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions [“they appear as an appendix in the critical text of Nestle, clearly indicating that Matthew’s original manuscript of his gospel did not contained any trinitarian end”, Dr. Cruz.]

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The Harmony of the Gospels Introductory Essay (1887) by Professor M. B. Riddle. Eusebius of Caesarea (died AD 340) adopted a similar set of divisions for the gospels [like Ammonius’], adding to them numbers from 1 to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions.

This looks accurate, and it looks like FZ plagiarized this information as a secondary source, his common method.

Matthew Riddle Brown (1836-1916)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Brown_Riddle

The Harmony of the Gospels (c. 1888)
translated by the rev. s. d. f. salmond, d.d.,
free college, aberdeen
edited, with notes and introduction, by the rev. m. b. riddle, d.d.,
professor of new-testament exegesis, western theological seminary, allcgheny, pa.
Introductory Essay
By Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QyU-DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA92
Also
https://books.google.com/books?id=v3X2nmtQ2jYC&pg=PT211

p. 93 has the text about the sections and canons and Tischendorf's edition.

Eusebius of Caesarea (died A.D. 340) adopted a similar set of divisions, adding to them numbers from I to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions.496 The influence of this system seems to have been great, but Eusebius often accepts a parallelism where there is really none whatever. Some of the sections are very brief, containing only part of a verse. Hence the tables of sections furnish no basis for estimating the matter common to two or more evangelists.

This is a bit dated, since there is lots of ensuing scholarship in the next 130 years on the Eusebian sections. Nonetheless, the reference is solid.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

[“they appear as an appendix in the critical text of Nestle, clearly indicating that Matthew’s original manuscript of his gospel did not contained any trinitarian end”, Dr. Cruz.]

FZ is conflating the two quotes.

And since we do not know:

a) who is "Dr. Cruz",
b) where he wrote this, and
c) what was his reasoning,

from a scholarship standpoint it is worthless. Note the trick of combining legitimate information (which does not say anything of special interest) with a shoddy sourced quote. And I doubt that Flaming can help on this, I tend to think he did not even check the Matthew Brown Riddle source. In other words, the trick may have been in his unreferenced and plagiarized source, rather than implemented by FZ.

None dare call this scholarship.

This is especially egregious since it is hard to see any way that the Eusebian sections can shed light on the exact text of Eusebius, much less that of Matthew. Plus, who is Dr. Cruz, if there is such a person commenting as above, and what language did he write, and what did he say?

Steven Avery