Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[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]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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/di...ia_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]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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 ??