Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The short answer is that the Peshitta is a fine early translation from the Greek, that generally supports the pure Bible text. However, it does have some major corruptions, like at 1 Timothy 3:16, where it has "which" was manifest in the flesh.

Lamsa's translation is ok. He actually used some Authorized Version excellence in the process. Lamsa was hanging out with some new agey people (especially Rocco A. Errico) for awhile, who were part of his support network, but afaik that was after the edition, and the version itself does not have new age junk like The Message. It is not anywhere near as good as the Authorized Version, but it is far, far better than the Westcott-Hort corruption versions. (NIV, NAS, etc.)

The problem addressed in the article above is the Aramaic Primacy theory, that tries to claim that the New Testament was (with some possible exceptions in the five books not in the original Peshitta) written in Aramaic. Many of the Aramaic Primacy people are quite sincere, they are looking for a pure Bible, and they have been misled a bit.

Thank you. I will look further into the subject. One thing that has confused me sometimes is the conflation that occurs between "Aramaic" and "Hebrew", I think what some people call "Hebrew" was actually Aramaic or something like that?

I also intend to flesh out my understanding of the connections between the Aramaic and the Syriac versions, so any good reads on the subject you might recommend would be appreciated.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Thank you. I will look further into the subject. One thing that has confused me sometimes is the conflation that occurs between "Aramaic" and "Hebrew",.

Similar to the language difference of say, Spanish and Italian, from what I understand, maybe Aramaic and Hebrew are more apart.. Definitely not so close as Spanish and Portuguese. Different scripts, but you can have Aramaic in a Hebrew script. And they really cannot understand each other in conversation, if there is no background in the other language.

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think what some people call "Hebrew" was actually Aramaic or something like that?

The New Testament refers a few times to Hebraisti, which is clearly Hebrew, there are other words like Chaldee or Syriac that would refer to Aramaic. The modern scholars went haywire and tried to make the NT Hebraisti into Aramaic, that has been largely corrected by Ken Penner (a paper at SBL), Douglas Hamp, Alan Millard and a few others. Paul spoke Hebrew to the crowd in Jerusalem. And the Authorized Version got it right, again, throw away any versions that have Aramaic in the NT text.

Originally Posted by Esaias

I also intend to flesh out my understanding of the connections between the Aramaic and the Syriac versions, so any good reads on the subject you might recommend would be appreciated.

In a general sense, there are Aramaic dialects within the category of Syriac. Aramaic is generally used for the OT sections in Ezra and Daniel, Syriac for the Peshitta. The dialect of the eastern Syriac has differences from the Judean Aramaic. They could probably converse ok, the script really changed some.

Good reads are hard to find, offhand.

And I do have one friend who was born in the area of Syria where Aramaic is the native tongue, and she is largely based in Israel, also Bethlehem. And would distribute Bibles in Hebrew, Arabic, etc. We laughed about how people would tell her that Aramaic is a dead language, since she learned it from birth. The orthodox (or ultra-orthodox including Chasids) Jews use Aramaic more than Hebrew. Partly for the Talmud related writings, also for conversation, if I remember right. I should check with my Jerusalem friend, I am a bit fuzzy on this at the moment. And I think they use Hebrew as a concession to being in Israel, where it is the common language.

[FlamingZword]

Exploratio Evangelica: A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief (1899) by Percy Gardner, says: “the last verses of Matthew’s Gospel, prescribing baptism into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, do not embody the teaching of the Master, or even of his Apostles, at the first.”

[Scott Pitta]

So shall we be live Jefferson and cut out the passages that do not reflect our theological presuppositions ??

Textual criticism is about manuscripts, not theology.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Exploratio Evangelica: A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief (1899) by Percy Gardner, says: “the last verses of Matthew’s Gospel, prescribing baptism into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, do not embody the teaching of the Master, or even of his Apostles, at the first.”

Percy Gardner (1848-1937)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Gardner

was an archaeologist and he simply followed the "great" (sic, that was from FZ) Adolph Harnack's unbelief about the New Testament.

e.g. His bigger attacks on the NT were elsewhere, he considered the virgin birth a later tack-on.

Exploratio Evangelica: A Brief Examination of the Basis and Origin of Christian Belief (1899)
https://books.google.com/books?id=K8dJAAAAMAAJ&pg=P238

Professor Harnack writes: “The birth of Jesus of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary certainly had no place in the oldest preaching."

Thus, the goal was to change or make of less significance the Apostle's Creed, since it affirmed the virgin birth.

Gardner referred to the:

"tale of the Virgin-birth and the tale of the Resurrection of the Body, with which the Gospel narrative begins and ends." - p. 234

And he refers to the virgin birth as a:

"somewhat crude attempt to explain the nature the Founder ... to many thoughtful minds, the acceptance of the tenet of the virgin-birth seems to reduce the whole human life of the Founder to a kind of mirage, to paint it with colours “which never were on sea or land," to deprive the Christian of real human relationship to his Master." p. 246, p. 248

Luke is said to have

"accepted a current fable" p. 236

in relating the history of the trip to Bethlehem for the census registration.

Gardmer refers to the

"spurious Acts of the Apostles" - p. 243

And there is a leaning towards the mythicism that is around today, trying to paint Christianity as akin to the various pagan religions.

A worthless reference, in terms of Matthew 28:19. Just a Harnack parrot, and the verse is just touched on en passant.

However it can lead to interesting studies about Lucan historicity, the virgin birth and related themes. William Mitchell Ramsay, Charles Gore, George Herbert Box, Vincent Taylor (who also wrote on whether the NT has Jesus called God), plus backwards to William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity.

One major point is from Arthur Custance, the fascinating study on the purpose and need and imperative of the virgin birth, which is largely missed in the historic debate, such as the one of the early 1900s.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Conybeare was also involved in virgin birth doubts, and may have been an ebionite, to any extent that he was a believe in Jesus.

One of the other verses he wanted to change would have Joseph as the father of Jesus (Matthew 1:16 corruption).

He wrote an article "Virgo concipiet,’where he views the virgin birth as:

“pagan folkiore.”

Virgin Birth of Christ (1958)
The Theory of Jewish Derivation
By J. Gresham Machen
https://books.google.com/books?id=qG7f9wT1uqIC&pg=PA311

Although, ironically, he may have done some decent scholarship on the Jewish understanding and expectation of the virgin birth.

Conybeare relates this to how:

"the Christian legend arose".

The Academy (1896)
https://books.google.com/books?id=8F...J&pg=RA1-PA547

Unbelievers are always looking for ways to change the Bible, it makes them feel they have a certain special justification, if they are able to change God's word they feel they have a type of special anointing, and they are no longer accountable to God and his pure word, they in fact determine his word for him!

More references are scattered here and there. There are some here:

A Critical Examination of the Evidences for the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth (1908)
By Thomas James Thorburn (1858-1923)

https://books.google.com/books?id=LhcPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA39
As regards Mr. Conybeare’s proposal to regard verses 19 and 20 as the gloss of some dull-minded scribe, which eventually crept into the text, it is sufficient to reply that there is not a shadow of MS. evidence of any kind to support such a theory. This proposal, indeed, is a sample of the loosest type of modern criticism, which is in effect quietly to drop any passage which conflicts with some pre-conceived theory of an author’s meaning as an interpolation in the original text, regardless of whether there is, or is not, any evidence to justify such a proceeding. If we once adopt such a system, it would seem that the words of an author could be made to support almost any theory that may be advanced. ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=LhcPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA52
"Now," says Mr. Conybeare, “ with the disappearance of the T.R. in verse 34 vanishes the last foothold in St. Luke of the tenet of the miraculous birth.”

You can see that the bible-correcting dark spirit was heavy on Conybeare. He would try to change the Bible to match his beliefs, rather than receive the pure Bible and let the scriptures inform doctrine.

The Thornburn explanation, on two other verses, Matthew 1:19-20, is a perfect fit for this thread and the no-evidence theory to try to change Matthew 28:19.

Same perp, different verses.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

So shall we be live Jefferson and cut out the passages that do not reflect our theological presuppositions ??

Textual criticism is about manuscripts, not theology.

that is a misconception or absolute statement.
I have not advocated cutting passages that do not reflect our theological presuppositions.

Your question is a loaded question similar to "Have you stopped beating your wife?

It is similar to a question using Hitler or a bad person as an example.

Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore we should not be vegetarians.
Hitler was a nonsmoker, therefore we should be smokers.
Jefferson was a slave owner, therefore he is a bad person to imitate.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

So shall we be live Jefferson and cut out the passages that do not reflect our theological presuppositions ??

Notice this comment above:

As regards Mr. Conybeare’s proposal to regard verses 19 and 20 as the gloss of some dull-minded scribe, which eventually crept into the text, it is sufficient to reply that there is not a shadow of MS. evidence of any kind to support such a theory. This proposal, indeed, is a sample of the loosest type of modern criticism, which is in effect quietly to drop any passage which conflicts with some pre-conceived theory of an author’s meaning as an interpolation in the original text, regardless of whether there is, or is not, any evidence to justify such a proceeding. If we once adopt such a system, it would seem that the words of an author could be made to support almost any theory that may be advanced. ...

Ironically, that was about other verses that Conybeare wanted to snip out for other reasons.

Same idea as his Matthew 28:19 theory.

[Scott Pitta]

It is nearly impossible to prove why manuscript copyists edited manuscripts. Arguing for manuscript editing, due to theological reasons, without any manuscript evidence for support, is creative writing, or fiction.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

It is nearly impossible to prove why manuscript copyists edited manuscripts. Arguing for manuscript editing, due to theological reasons, without any manuscript evidence for support, is creative writing, or fiction.

We have plenty of evidence, maybe not the evidence that you might want to accept, but evidence definitively there is.

I have barely begun to present my evidence, there is much more evidence, a whole lot more, but I am giving the evidence a little morsel at a time, so people will not choke at the large amount there is.