Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

The Harmony of the Gospels Introductory Essay (1887) by Professor M. B. Riddle. Eusebius of Caesarea (died AD 340) adopted a similar set of divisions for the gospels [like Ammonius’], adding to them numbers from 1 to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions [“they appear as an appendix in the critical text of Nestle, clearly indicating that Matthew’s original manuscript of his gospel did not contained any trinitarian end”, Dr. Cruz.]

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The Harmony of the Gospels Introductory Essay (1887) by Professor M. B. Riddle. Eusebius of Caesarea (died AD 340) adopted a similar set of divisions for the gospels [like Ammonius’], adding to them numbers from 1 to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions.

This looks accurate, and it looks like FZ plagiarized this information as a secondary source, his common method.

Matthew Riddle Brown (1836-1916)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Brown_Riddle

The Harmony of the Gospels (c. 1888)
translated by the rev. s. d. f. salmond, d.d.,
free college, aberdeen
edited, with notes and introduction, by the rev. m. b. riddle, d.d.,
professor of new-testament exegesis, western theological seminary, allcgheny, pa.
Introductory Essay
By Professor M. B. Riddle, D.D.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QyU-DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA92
Also
https://books.google.com/books?id=v3X2nmtQ2jYC&pg=PT211

p. 93 has the text about the sections and canons and Tischendorf's edition.

Eusebius of Caesarea (died A.D. 340) adopted a similar set of divisions, adding to them numbers from I to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions.496 The influence of this system seems to have been great, but Eusebius often accepts a parallelism where there is really none whatever. Some of the sections are very brief, containing only part of a verse. Hence the tables of sections furnish no basis for estimating the matter common to two or more evangelists.

This is a bit dated, since there is lots of ensuing scholarship in the next 130 years on the Eusebian sections. Nonetheless, the reference is solid.

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

[“they appear as an appendix in the critical text of Nestle, clearly indicating that Matthew’s original manuscript of his gospel did not contained any trinitarian end”, Dr. Cruz.]

FZ is conflating the two quotes.

And since we do not know:

a) who is "Dr. Cruz",
b) where he wrote this, and
c) what was his reasoning,

from a scholarship standpoint it is worthless. Note the trick of combining legitimate information (which does not say anything of special interest) with a shoddy sourced quote. And I doubt that Flaming can help on this, I tend to think he did not even check the Matthew Brown Riddle source. In other words, the trick may have been in his unreferenced and plagiarized source, rather than implemented by FZ.

None dare call this scholarship.

This is especially egregious since it is hard to see any way that the Eusebian sections can shed light on the exact text of Eusebius, much less that of Matthew. Plus, who is Dr. Cruz, if there is such a person commenting as above, and what language did he write, and what did he say?

Steven Avery

[FlamingZword]

History of Dogma (1893) 3rd English edition, Vol. I footnote 75 & 76 by Dr. Adolph Harnack (1851-1930) Theologian and Church historian. “Matt. XXVIII. 19, is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus, and has not the authority in the Apostolic age, which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself.”

[Esaias]

Brother Avery's research makes this thread worth reading.

[Scott Pitta]

Harnack says: It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it.

Does Harnack mean that all post resurrection speeches of our Lord are not original ?? If so, none of the accounts of the great commission are original.

I disagree with Harnack's assessement.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Harnack says: It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. Does Harnack mean that all post resurrection speeches of our Lord are not original ?? If so, none of the accounts of the great commission are original. I disagree with Harnack's assessement.

And I think you are correct, that his doubts included post-resurrection reports in general. Also the Gospel of John, the resurrection, the virgin birth and more. He definitely was not:

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The great Dr. Adolph Harnack

In an earlier day FZ used to claim, without attribution, that Harnack:

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

believed the original wording in Mat 28:19 was "in my name",

That seems to now be gone-claim. (And I had questioned it, no response, but it was dropped from the FZ posts.)

And I put a bit about Harnack here:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

In an earlier thread I went over a bit the fact that Harnack had taken a few differing opinions on the verse. This footnote (the number is wrong above) can be read online here: ...

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother Avery's research makes this thread worth reading.

thanks a lot Esaias.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother Avery's research makes this thread worth reading.

Thanks.

And I discovered today that a couple of writers have pointed out the shoddy scholarship that comes from the contra Matthew 28:19 crowd.

First, here is an example from this forum:

Originally Posted by jfrog

Once again the person responsible for this collection of quotes has added in remarks that are not found in the original source, and these added words shamefully alter Ratzinger’s intended meaning. It is hardly surprising that no bibliographical information is provided to facilitate checking into this quotation. In spite of this authors’ best effort, I have located the source of the quotation. Once this quote is read in context it becomes apparent that Ratzinger is not saying that the text of Matthew 28:19 formed or took shape or originated in the second and third centuries in Rome. Rather, he was saying that the Apostle’s Creed took shape in connection with the way baptism was administered in the ancient Church. Here is what Ratzinger wrote:...

Originally Posted by jfrog

Was it not I who spent my time delving through the interent so I could find the proper cardinal ratzinger quote in context so I could show the shoddiness and outright deceit being used in the so called evidence that was being posted on this forum.

Originally Posted by jfrog

I'll be a good sport and show the deceitfulness in one more piece of that preponderance of evidence you have:.... The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4 ... The outright deceitfulness about what the actual encyclopedia was saying is astonishing!

FZ is just following in a pattern that goes back to at least 2006. It looks like he is the inheritor of the problem, and basically has done very little of his own study.

A paper by Tim Hegg, dated 2006, goes into this problem in more depth.

These problems have been compounded by the plagiarism aspect, where FZ does not tell us where he got the information, since it is obvious that he rarely, if ever, even checks the source he is referencing.

Plus he has a little cottage with the books that are loaded with misinformation.

And I just realized the need to research each one of these references carefully recently.
With the results we see in this thread. (And the lack of scholarly responsiveness.)

Steven

[FlamingZword]

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1898), (1963) Volume 1 “Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.”, “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. The use of a Trinitarian Formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church History. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit.
The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 represents the exact words of Christ."

[Scott Pitta]

So who penned the article for the Hastings Dictionary quote ? Each article is signed at the end.

The cumulative evidence of TC is consistent: there is no textual variant in Mt. 28:19.

Each of the Gospels contains unique wording and phrases. The wording in Matthew is no different. That would fit into the literary criticism category.