Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Scott Pitta]

But theories require facts. Hard data. Evidence.

There is no manuscript evidence of a variant reading for Mt. 28:19. Not one Greek manuscript for support.

No, not one.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

But theories require facts. Hard data. Evidence.

There is no manuscript evidence of a variant reading for Mt. 28:19. Not one Greek manuscript for support.

No, not one.

But also there is no manuscript Greek or otherwise of the traditional reading of Mt 28:19 earlier that the Codex Vaticanus (325 -350 AD)

No, not one.

So nobody has any Hard data or evidence whatsoever that the original MS had the trinitarian phrase.

[FlamingZword]

The article “Die Taufe im Neue Testament,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologische (G) (“Baptism in the New Testament,” Journal for Scientific Theology) (1879) p. 401 by Theologian Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, calls Matthew 28:19 apocryphal and does not consider it valid.

[Scott Pitta]

Dating NT Greek manuscripts, especially the early ones, is beyond my skill. I have a preference for papri 45. It is early. Not sure how early.

The entire premise of your argument lacks the necessary element. A Greek manuscript of Matthew with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The article “Die Taufe im Neue Testament,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologische (G) (“Baptism in the New Testament,” Journal for Scientific Theology) (1879) p. 401 by Theologian Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, calls Matthew 28:19 apocryphal and does not consider it valid.

The title is sometimes listed as - Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft.

The publication is online here:

Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologische
Die Taufe im Neue Testament,
H. Holtzmann
https://books.google.com/books?id=3FUtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA401

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

To get a fix on the wild unbelieving views of the German scholars of this era, one good resource is:

The sacraments in the New Testament (1903)
John Chisholm Lambert (1857-1917)
https://books.google.com/books?id=F1IVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA40

"Holtzmann and his school"

Now Lambert himself accepts some liberal textual stuff, he does not defend the Mark ending or the heavenly witnesses. Nonetheless he has good insights on the mostly German liberal scholars.

You learn that they wanted to be surgeons (p. 47) chopping out textual sections. Removing our precious words in Matthew 28:19 were just one part of how they wanted to mangle the Matthew ending.

Maybe I will include a few sections but much of the book is a good read.

For our discussions, the whole Lecture II starting on p. 36, especially to about p. 63, also p. 79. Then a bit more on p. 234-239.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Dating NT Greek manuscripts, especially the early ones, is beyond my skill. I have a preference for papri 45. It is early. Not sure how early.

The entire premise of your argument lacks the necessary element. A Greek manuscript of Matthew with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19.

Papyrus 45 is from 250 AD, It is at the Chester Beatty Library repository, in Dublin, Ireland. It Reference is BP I, and it contains up to Matthew chapter 26, it lacks chapter 27 and chapter 28. So this papyrus can not say anything about Mt. 28.19.

[FlamingZword]

Christian Institutions by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Dean of Westminster (1881): “Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which Baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only” (p. 13).
“It is not certain that in early times this [Triadic] formula was in use.”

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Christian Institutions by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Dean of Westminster (1881): “Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which Baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only” (p. 13).
“It is not certain that in early times this [Triadic] formula was in use.”

We would agree with all this, let's give more context. (The page is 12, followed by 267-268.)

Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (1815-1881)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Penrhyn_Stanley

Christian Institutions: Essays on Ecclesiastical Subjects - (1882) 3rd edition
Arthur Penrhyn Stanley
https://books.google.com/books?id=bl...J&pg=PA14-IA12

And this was further impressed upon them by the name in which they were baptised. It was, if not always, yet whenever we hear of its use in the Acts of the Apostles, in the name of the ‘Lord Jesus' 8 Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which Baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only.

8 Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x. 48. The form ‘ In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,’ though found in early times, was not universal. Cyprian first and Pope Nicholas I. afterwards acknowledged the validity of Baptism 'In the name of the Lord Jesus.’ See Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. i. p. 162. - p. 12

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

https://books.google.com/books?id=blcXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA267

the two Creeds ... the framework on which they are formed. That framework is the simple expression of faith used in the Baptism of the early Christians. It is taken from the First Gospel,4 and it consists of ‘ the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.’

4 It is not certain that in early times this formula was in use. The first profession of belief was only in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts ii. 38, viii. 12, 16, x. 48, xix. 6). In later times, Cyprian (Ep. Ixxiii.), the Council of Frejus, and Pope Nicholas the First acknowledge the validity of this form. Still it soon superseded the profession of belief in Jesus Christ, and in the second century had become universal. (See Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, i. 162.) - (footnote p. 267-268)

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

This was published for two centuries!
(The url goes to the same quote, it is all the Arthur Penrhyn Stanley article.

The Nineteenth Century
https://books.google.com/books?id=jZ5EAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA692

The Twentieth Century, Volume 6
https://books.google.com/books?id=pjNaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA692

[Scott Pitta]

Without manuscript evidence to support your hypothesis, it remains pious conjecture.

It is all talk until someone produces a Greek manuscript with a variant reading that supports your theory.

Let me know when such a Greek manuscript of Matthew surfaces.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Without manuscript evidence to support your hypothesis, it remains pious conjecture.

It is all talk until someone produces a Greek manuscript with a variant reading that supports your theory.

Let me know when such a Greek manuscript of Matthew surfaces.

Maybe you will be waiting for a long time, for have you considered that the original Matthew was written in Hebrew.
and it was changed when it was translated into Greek, so therefore all Greek copies would contain this translation?

Stop getting hang up on Greek, Jesus was a Hebrew, a Jew, and neither him nor any of his apostles were Greeks and it is highly unlikely that those Galilean fisherman knew Greek, maybe a few did, but there is no gospel written by Phillip [A Greek name], unless you count The Gospel of Philip, which by the way does mention baptism in his name.

“Those who will be baptized go down into the water. But Christ, by coming out of the water, will consecrate it, so that they who have received the baptism in his name may be perfect.”

So you wanted Greek, I give you the Greek citation from Phillip.
"baptism in his name"