Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by 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.

Far too vague.
The first time I have ever hard of a passage in the New Testament criticized for "Europeanized wording and structure".

What specific words are Europeanized or Latinized?
What element of structure?
And was he arguing to remove the whole verse?
Very strange.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Far too vague.
The first time I have ever hard of a passage in the New Testament criticized for "Europeanized wording and structure".

What specific words are Europeanized or Latinized?
What element of structure?
And was he arguing to remove the whole verse?
Very strange.

Would Simon happen to have been a 16th century Polish Jew?

EDIT: found this on Wikipedia (I know, I know) -

Symon Budny was an early figure in the party in the Radical Reformation which utterly denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Budny, along with the Greek Unitarian Jacobus Palaeologus, and the Hungarian Ferenc David, denied not just the pre-existence of Christ, which is what distinguished "Socinian" from "Arian" belief, but Budny, Paleologus and David went further and also denied invocation of Christ. Among these three Budny also denied the virgin birth.[12] According to Wilbur (1947) it was his strong stance against the worship of and prayer to Christ that brought a separation with those like Marcin Czechowic who considered the views of Budny, Paleologus, and David as a revival of the Ebionite position and a form of Judaizing, and resulted in Budny's excommunication from the Minor Reformed Church of Poland.,[13] though subsequent Eastern European historians consider that in Budny's case it may have been on account of his note in the Belarusian New Testament stating that Jesus was Joseph's son, as much as the better known in the West letter to Fausto Sozzini (1581) to which Fausto Sozzini's answer is preserved in Volume II of the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum printed by Sozzini's grandson in Amsterdam, 1668.[14]
(end quote)

Sad that a Oneness Pentecostal has to resort to clowns like this to support some off the wall attack on God's Word.

[Esaias]

Calvinist priest of Lithuania in the sixteenth century; founder of the Polish sect of the Budnians, who were surnamed "Half-Jews" ("Semi-Judaizantes").

...

Budny associated much with Jewish scholars, and was a great friend of the Jews. He was somewhat familiar with the Hebrew language and literature. Hezekiah David Abulafia mentions him in his work "Ben Zeḳuniam" in the following words: "There is another wise man, by the name of Simon Budny, who praises the Talmud very much and considers it to be the best work of all literatures."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...01-budny-simon

[Esaias]

Funny how a hunch plays out, eh?

[Steven Avery]

Interesting about the (half) Jew conjecture, also the degree to which Budny was an ebionite.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sad that a Oneness Pentecostal has to resort to clowns like this to support some off the wall attack on God's Word.

Polish Sacred Philology in the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation: Chapters in the History of the Controversies (1551-1632)
David A. Frick
https://books.google.com/books?id=Vt7_Ypel12cC&pg=PA87

Budny
"the books" have been corrupted, and especially the manuscripts of the New Testament, "which are so corrupt, falsified, that I do not know whether anything could be more corrupt."’

Frick actually has a lot of interesting material in that book.

=====================

And I wrote a little bit about Budny here, with a small reference about the ebionite element.

Symon Budny (1530-1593) in the Preface to the 1574 Polish New Testament, working with the information gleaned from Valla and Erasmus, noted three principle causes of textual errors ...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTe...7964407957229/

Budny was one of the very early opponents of "God was manifest in the flesh", preferring "which was manifest" meaning the mystery.

As for his scholarship on the end of Matthew, it would be fine to look it over.

[Scott Pitta]

All of the early Greek manuscripts of Matthew read the same way in Mt. 28:19. That reading did not change over time. The late manuscripts and the early manuscripts read the same way. There is no variation over time in Mt. 28:19.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

Those Hebrew letters were supposedly notations. You might not understand this, but the Gospel according to Matthew was known as a "book" a "scroll" not letters. FZ, you do understand that hearsay is inadmissible in court? Do you happen to know why sir?

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.”

FZ, that is due to the minority text. Not the majority text, which does have the heavenly witness.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

This spurious text is now omitted from all modern New Testament versions.

Thank you for proving my original point. Which was how many more insertions? how many verses does NIV omit? 16 verses are omitted because like you, the translators accepted the testimony of a few scrolls. Matthew 17:21 is missing, because it was missing in 2 scrolls. Do the math, there is a reason why there is a majority text and a minority text. Matthew 17:21 is missing from the MINORITY TEXT. Matthew 18:11, GONE, Matthew 23:14...GONE! Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26:, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:4, Acts 8:3, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST I John 5:7 gone, gone, gone. Where is Lysias? In the minority text he is missing? In Acts 24:7 the writers felt it was very important to include him in the witness. But the minority text forgets he was ever there. Could you explain why he was removed? Or better yet, why was he INSERTED? You see my friend the difficulties you face when you state that your faith stands up a holy book riddled with insertions? We have a huge library of manuscripts which agree more with the majority than with the minority. Yet, even the minority books still have the same Matthew 28:19 which we have today. Your argument falls flat on it face.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

My friend what is embarrassing is that Modern Christianity is mere opinion. Since opinions of scholars, saints, preachers, evangelists are seen to be higher than logically observing the EVIDENCE we have set before us.
Historically the New Testament was originally and purposely penned in Greek. Jesus not only spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, but could speak Greek and Latin. As a young boy he was taken into Hellenized Egypt, read an Old Testament, and quoted from it which was entirely penned in Greek. Matthew was a Roman Tax collector who had to be able to speak fluently in Greek, Latin, and be able to write in these languages. He had to be able to give parchments, and keep records in Greek and Latin. If he kept notes in Aramaic, then we have not a shred of evidence. He most certainly wouldn't of kept the notes in Hebrew. Because Hebrew in the first century was a liturgical language. Reserved for temple work. You bring up Catholics? They have always defended a Aramaic/ Hebrew Matthew. There Popish teaching works in Hebrew Matthew 16:18. Not in Greek, it is a word play in Greek. Because in Aramaic Hebrew Matthew just calls Peter the rock which the church is built upon. In Greek Peter is called a piece of the rock, a smaller piece. Therefore there is no way we would confuse the greater rock, with Peter. So, my friend, if you were Catholic, a Greek Matthew doesn't uphold the Popish crown.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

They removed it because they went to using the minority text versions.
My brother, it isn't just a question of one verse here. It is a question of how really shredded this New Testament really is. Hence Roman Catholics teach their people that there canons had to be created to help out a book, that needs a lot of help. Keep in mind that you are defending the Roman Catholic translation. When in fact they don't want their people Bible studying in the first place. What I mean, is that they use to take the Bible away, and replace it with the priest. Now they just give you their minority translations and everyone is happy. Including you.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

Because they are from the minority text.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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,

My friend, you are missing the point here. You first start out with stating that Matthew 28:19 has been tampered with by Hellenized scribes. But, as I pointed out in my earlier posts you don't stop there. You keep chopping away. 1 John 5:7 gets the axe, and why? Because it seems to Three godder to you? Just a wee bit Trinitarian to you? 1 John 5:7 gets removed by the Watchtower Bible Society, but they didn't stop there. They modified John 1:1,. To say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." yeah, good times. So, if the my doctrine doesn't fit the Bible, I just take out scissor and pen? No thanks.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

but hey Benincasa are you one of those defenders of the Comma Johanneum?

Yes, because I know all to well these verses

Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Ecclesiastes 3:14, Galatians 1:8, 2 Peter 3:16, and Revelation 22:18-19.

Again, be honest with yourself. How much more of these New Testament books are smoked? Seriously, you are just painting yourself into a corner, and in a face to face standoff on this subject around an audience. You wouldn't be able to stand.

Keeping you in prayer, and hope you consider my words.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sad that a Oneness Pentecostal has to resort to clowns like this to support some off the wall attack on God's Word.

Yet, that's what ends up happening. Since a lack of hard evidence or some good historically proofs. People end up resorting to individuals who actually have some antichrist reasons for their agenda of a Hebrew Matthew and New Testament. But this proves my point once again. In an earlier post I spoke about the Hebrew word which means young woman. Which is used to allude to Jesus not being born of a virgin. The main thing I would like to point out about Symon Budny, is that his argument against Jesus was concerning the Hebrew. He asserted that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, because the Hebrew never said that the Christ would be born of a virgin. Symon Budny, during his own lifetime was used by anti missionary Jews of the time. One who was well known was Issac ben Avraham Troki. Who used Symon Budny's writings to prove that Jesus wasn't divine, wasn't a savior to the Jews, and didn't come to start Christianity.

[Steven Avery]

Just a note that the evidences for the heavenly witnesses is not the Greek Majority - Minority issue. This issue is a main part of the discussion on the Mark ending, Pericope Adulterae, 1 Timothy 3:16, John 1:18 and 1,000 other verses where the corruption modern versions are far inferior to the Authorized Version, often with piddle omission corruptions.

On the heavenly witnesses, the evidence is much more from the Latin side, and came over from the Greek in the first centuries. This is much more like Acts 8:37, which has light Greek ms. support

The heavenly witnesses has incredible early church writings support, Ante-Nicene like Tertullian followed by Cyprian, also Jerome in the Vulgate Prologue and a Carthage of Council in the 400s where hundreds affirmed the verse in their Bible contra the Arians under Huneric.

The solecism in the short Greek text, the Johannine beautiful consistency and style, all the Latin evidences, and more .. lots of this should be on the thread above. Many learned scholars see this verse as actually having been difficult for the Trinitarian side in the Sabellian controversies.

Steven