Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Steven Avery]

A couple of tweaks

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew.

Two different Hebrew Matthews. DuTillet (and Munster) have the traditional ending.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman.

Not really. That is anti-missionary agit-prop. Almah in the context of Isaiah 7:14 is excellent as virgin. Betulah has difficulties.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The Wycliffe Bible commentary: Matthew, Pfeiffer, C. F.

Composition and Date. The great frequency of citations and allusions to Matthew found in the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and others attests its early composition and widespread use. The literary connections of this Gospel must be considered in its relations to the other Synoptics, and also to the statement of Papias that "Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted as he could" (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.39). Many have explained Papias' statement as referring to an Aramaic original from which our Greek Gospel is a translation. Yet our Greek text does not bear the marks of a translation, and the absence of any trace of an Aramaic original casts grave doubts upon this hypothesis. Goodspeed argues at length that it would be contrary to Greek practice to name a Greek translation after the author of an Aramaic original, for Greeks were concerned only with the one who put a work into Greek. As examples he cites the Gospel of Mark (it was not called the Gospel of Peter) and the Greek Old Testament, which was called the Septuagint (Seventy) after its translators, not after its Hebrew authors (E. J. Goodspeed, Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist, pp. 105, 106). Thus Papias is understood to mean that Matthew recorded (by shorthand?) the discourses of Jesus in Aramaic, and later drew upon these when he composed his Greek Gospel. Though it is surely possible that Mark was written first, and may have been available to Matthew, there was no slavish use of this shorter Gospel by Matthew, and many have argued for the complete independence of the two books.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

A couple of tweaks

Two different Hebrew Matthews. DuTillet (and Munster) have the traditional ending.

Not really. That is anti-missionary agit-prop. Almah in the context of Isaiah 7:14 is excellent as virgin. Betulah has difficulties.

Bringing up the DuTillet Matthew or the shem tov Matthew is due to being penned in Hebrew. The word עלמה almah means unmarried young woman. You are correct to point out that anti-missionaries jump all over that word to disprove Jesus as Christ. But that is where we get led when we accuse the Gospel according to Matthew to be originally penned in the Hebrew language. My specific cardinal point in which I intended to go with my post, is primarily where this all leads. It isn't just about an insertion of Baptize in the name of the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. No, this is something much more dire. It is question begging, that since Matthew 28:19 was corrupted (not hundreds) but thousands of years ago. Seriously? So, what else is a mess? If anyone took the time to go through the Thomas Jefferson New Testament, you would find a cut up pasted labirnyth of chaos. Is that what Matthew is now? Ask yourself? Your atheists friends and relatives would love to know about your Hellenized shredded version of Matthew, contains?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yet our Greek text does not bear the marks of a translation,

Amen.

And the internal translations, where a Hebrew or Aramaic word is translated into Greek, are virtual proof that the Gospels were not written in a semitic language. Such translations would not be in the theorized original semitic text, and there is no warrant for adding them into a conjectured translation (e.g. Hebrew to Greek.) And they are virtually 100% consistent in all the Greek and Latin manuscripts and text-lines. Why? Simply because the author wrote in Greek, with Mark having a few possibilities involving Latin.

[Scott Pitta]

Outstanding research, Rev. Avery.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

It would be interesting and beneficial to see more quotes of the supposed Hebrew original in the current Greek text. But there seems to be none.

Then again, there are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew from the second or third centuries for us to examine.

Nor are there any variant readings of Mt. 28:19 for any reason.

Theories must be based on hard data.

Then again, there are no Greek manuscripts of Matthew from the second or third centuries for us to examine.

None whatsoever.

The oldest verified Greek traditional text, “The Codex Vaticanus” dates from 325-350 AD.

[FlamingZword]

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.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The bottom line boys and girls is that you have an individual and individuals proposing that the Matthew you hold in your hands is flawed. The Matthew has an ending which has an insertion. This might make some of you roll down the isles in glee. But, cooler heads just raise the eyebrow. Because if one insertion was made, then logically, and quite obviously there must be at least a few more. Or at worse, the entire book is a hodgepodge of insertions. This by no means strengthens a case for New Testament integrity, but actually does more to bring doubt on this book, and sadly others. The Matthew 28:19 discussion hinges on not only the insertion, but that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Not Aramaic, but Hebrew. There's your real devil in the details. We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew. Listen, Matthew's Greek original uses the Greek word for virgin. While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman. So, you don't just have your Matthew 28:19 insertion, you have the virgin birth getting erased. Hebrew Roots with all of its Yahooing away of the Greek, ends up placing the entire Gospel in the trick bag.

Regarding the Gospel of Matthew, “I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea” Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The bottom line boys and girls is that you have an individual and individuals proposing that the Matthew you hold in your hands is flawed. The Matthew has an ending which has an insertion. This might make some of you roll down the isles in glee. But, cooler heads just raise the eyebrow. Because if one insertion was made, then logically, and quite obviously there must be at least a few more. Or at worse, the entire book is a hodgepodge of insertions. This by no means strengthens a case for New Testament integrity, but actually does more to bring doubt on this book, and sadly others. The Matthew 28:19 discussion hinges on not only the insertion, but that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. Not Aramaic, but Hebrew. There's your real devil in the details. We end up holding discussions on the DuTillet Shem Tov Matthew. Listen, Matthew's Greek original uses the Greek word for virgin. While Hebrew 600 A.D. Masoretic text uses young woman. So, you don't just have your Matthew 28:19 insertion, you have the virgin birth getting erased. Hebrew Roots with all of its Yahooing away of the Greek, ends up placing the entire Gospel in the trick bag.

We have proof of an insertion in 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” also known as the Comma Johanneum.”
This spurious text is now omitted from all modern New Testament versions. It has now become an embarrassment that is quietly being hidden under the rug. Not even the Catholic Trinitarian scholars dare to defend this fabricated text anymore.
The Jerusalem Bible (1966) which is the Official Roman Catholic version reads “so that there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and all three of them agree.” (1 Jhn 5:7-8). So we can see that even the main defenders of the trinity have now omitted this text.
The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) Another catholic version reads at 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 it. So we see that even the Catholich church has already given up on this text that supports the trinity.

Also most protestant bibles have abandoned the comma Johanneum. The two major protestant translations of the 20th century, the RSV and NIV, also do not have this spurious phrase in them.

So we see that the Catholic Church and most protestant bibles have already admitted to this insertion. Yet a few deluded protestant trinitarians continue to defend it, I can understand that some die hard trinitatians defend this verse, but hey Benincasa are you one of those defenders of the Comma Johanneum?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

We have proof of an insertion in 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” also known as the Comma Johanneum.”)

Nonsense.
The heavenly witnesses is 100% the pure scripture, with incredible supporting evidence.

We have some discussion on the forum on two threads, and I tried to teach you about the evidences.

The Johannine Comma: Inspiration? Or Interpolation? (2007) - 17 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ead.php?t=6054

You could learn a lot by reviewing that thread.

Steven