Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

First I want to thank you for posting the collection of Bibles with the revised Matthew 28:19.

FlamingZword are all these translations supposedly based on some Hebrew manuscript of Matthew?

Also what are your views on the Du Tillet Shem Tob?

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

"The Jesus name Appendix" in PDF format is now freely available for download for those interested in knowing more about the name of Jesus and Matthew 28:19.
it is available at www.apostolic-bible.com

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

The book "The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored" has been updated.
you can buy it at Amazon or you can go to our web site for more information.
www.apostolic-bible.com

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

πορευθέντες ⸀οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ⸀βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

Updated books are fine. But the text of Mt. 28:19 remains the same. There are no Greek manuscripts of Mt. 28:19 that have a variant reading.

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

Who did the Spanish of your book?

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

Only California Pastors get a free copy?

What's up with that? :D

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

Really? Lets see the quote and reference.

Steven

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

Very creative.
What do you do with Irenaeus mentioning Matthew, referencing verses from Matthew including Matthew 28:19 ... all before your date for the Greek Matthew?

And what do you do with these references from before or close to your Greek Matthew?
(this can use a fuller check and rehash)

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) First Apology
Irenaeus – (2nd century) Against Heresies
Diatessoran (Tatian, c.175 AD)
Didache (c. 2nd century)
Apostolic Teachings (2nd Century) (x references)
The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles
Tertullian – (c. 200 AD) On Baptism.– Chapter XIII.
Against Praxeas
Prescription against Heretics
Hippolytus (c.200 AD) -Against the Heresy of One Noetus

These gentlemen were referencing the traditional Matthew 28:19 text.

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:

Here is Irenaeus writing in the 2nd century (about 140 years before Eusebius, who also has a number of quotes with the full expression.):

And I would say that this whole argument is done with smoke and mirrors. And the apostolic "scholars" who follow this argument should be recognized as Bible-correcting charlatans, and considered totally unreliable in terms of recognizing the pure word of God. Duped or ignorant or twisters of convenience, in a seminary stupor, if you do not like the word charlatans.

btw, there is nothing special about Eusebius using the short-hand most of the time, similar to apostolics asking "are you baptized in his name"?

Steven

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

Adolf Harnack didn't believe the Gospel of John was credible. In fact he believed the Gospel according to John was a bogus attempt to record the events of Jesus' life.

Re: The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored
 

We have not a title of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles—in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two—though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. Michaelis tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and Davidson and Cureton among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels—in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all—or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.
Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by Guericks, Olshausen, Thiersch, Townson, Tregelles, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.
It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of Dean Alford, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."


from A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Matthew, by Jamieson, Fausset, Brown.