Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Scott Pitta]

We base the text on manuscripts, not quotes from those manuscripts. Quotes from early church fathers are interesting. They also contribute to our understanding of the geographic distribution of a given reading.

If we had manuscripts of a Hebrew version of Matthew, that would be interesting. But there are none.

Should we replace the text of every passage with the reading of a early church father ? When should we and when should we not ?

Where are the Greek translations of the Hebrew Matthew ? Are there other glaring changes between the Hebrew Matthew and the Greek Matthew ?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Furthermore, all the Bibles you mention, if they contain any footnotes, all refer to Eusebius' infamous quotaton/paraphrase. That is NOT how you establish the text.

You do not seem to know that it was not only Eusebius which mentioned such a phrase. Here are some more citing Matthew 28:18

Eusebius: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name”. (18 times exact citations), (100+ times allusions)
Annarikhus: “Go ye forth into all the world, and teach ye all the nations in My Name in every place.”
Aphraates: “Go forth [and] make disciples of all the peoples, and they shall believe in me”
Ephrem: “Go out into the whole world and proclaim my gospel to the whole of creation and baptize all the Gentiles.”
Thaddaeus: “And He sent us in His name to proclaim repentance and remission of sins to all the nations.”

[Esaias]

And you do not seem to understand the difference between a text, and a quotation, and a paraphrase.

The TEXT is all important. We do not follow Eusebius, we follow the Bible. You should do the same.

[Scott Pitta]

When do we replace a text that has no history of variation, with a quote from the early church fathers ?? Do we do that in other places in Matthew ? Which church father quotes are superior, or most likely to be original, than the text in question ?

Are there more examples of this in NT literature ?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

apostates, please come up with a new insult.

Naah. Textual apostasy became a major force in the later 1800s, leading to the "Critical Text" full of blunders. Those who are textual apostates can have a wide variety of doctrinal ideas, but they never have a Final Authority pure Bible.

This particular blunder was an offshoot of that movement, and was pioneered by Frederick Cornwalis Conybeare (1956-1924).

Apostolic believers should be warned when some of their leaders are fighting the Bible.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

We do not go by the Greek manuscripts because we are using quotations of the original Hebrew Matthew.

Not an original.
From a 14th-century anti-Christian tract.

And you ignore dozens of blunders in the edition.
You simply cherry-pick one you like, because you do not understand apostolic Bible harmony.

Steven

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And you do not seem to understand the difference between a text, and a quotation, and a paraphrase.

The TEXT is all important. We do not follow Eusebius, we follow the Bible. You should do the same.

Yep you said the text is all important, however there is no surviving original text of the book of Matthew, all we have are copies of copies.

It is well known that of all the thousands of manuscripts encountered not a single one agrees with any other, there is always variations in all the manuscripts. There is no such thing as a perfect TEXT manuscript.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Not an original.
From a 14th-century anti-Christian tract.

And you ignore dozens of blunders in the edition.
You simply cherry-pick one you like, because you do not understand apostolic Bible harmony.

Steven

Actually the Eusebian citation brings Apostolic bible harmony, for that text is in harmony with Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48 and others.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Yep you said the text is all important, however there is no surviving original text of the book of Matthew, all we have are copies of copies.

It is well known that of all the thousands of manuscripts encountered not a single one agrees with any other, there is always variations in all the manuscripts. There is no such thing as a perfect TEXT manuscript.

And yet EVERY copy that has the verse in question, is in agreement on what it says. Therefore, the text can be determined. Your translation project however throws away the ENTIRE available manuscript evidence in favor of a QUOTATION by ONE GUY in the FOURTH CENTURY. Guess what, all we have are copies of copies OF HIS QUOTATION.

Like I said, you do not understand how Bible translation works. The "witnesses" and "support" you keep referring to are clear evidence you are in way over your head.

The sad thing is that publication of a Oneness Pentecostal "translation" that butchers the text like this just puts y'all in the same boat as the Watchtower Society with their New World Translation. Sad.

[Scott Pitta]

There are no textual variants to Mt. 28:19. Yes, there are plenty of variants in Matthew, as in the other books of the NT. But not in Mt. 28:19.

There is no manuscript that is free of variant readings. But not every sentence in every manuscript has errors or variations.

If you know of a Greek manuscript of Matthew 29:19 that has a textual variant, please document it here.