Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

The Historical New Testament (1901) by Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis James Moffatt, states: “So, besides Strauss, Hilgenfeld, and Havet (iv. p. 280), Keim, who regards it [Mat 28:19]…(p. 647) as a wandering passage, containing a baptismal formula, which originated in the first half of the second century.”
“The use of the baptismal formula belongs to an age subsequent to that of the apostles, who employed the simple phrase of baptism into the name of Jesus...Had this phrase been in existence and use, it is incredible that some trace of it should not have survived; whereas the earliest reference to it, outside of this passage, is in Clem. Rom. and the Didache…” (p. 648).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

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.

None of what you have posted is evidence, though. You are just posting 19th and 20th century people's opinions on how the apostolic church baptized, along with citations from people who don't even believe Jesus rose from the dead.

Not one shred of evidence concerning THE TEXT OF MATTHEW.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The Historical New Testament (1901) by Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis James Moffatt, ).

James Moffat (1870-1944)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Moffatt

The Historical New Testament (1901)
https://books.google.com/books?id=uBkVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA647

Moffat mentions about 20 different writers, who most all have different views on what they want to chop out, some 3 verses, some five, all sorts of contradictions. They generally work with the error of late dating and not understanding Bible harmony. It is a great example of the perils of the pseudo-scholarship we see from the liberals and unbelievers.

Moffat's New Testament properly has the full words of Matthew 28:19:

The Historical New Testament: Being the Literature of the New Testament Arranged in the Order of Its Literary Growth and According to the Dates of the Documents (1901)
https://books.google.com/books?id=uBkVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA343
And Jesus came and talked to them, saying,
“All authority has been given to me in heaven and upon earth ;
Go then and make disciples of all the nations,
Baptize them into the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit,
Teach them to observe all that ever I commanded you.
And lo, I myself am with you all the days until the close of the age!”

The New Testament: A New Translation (1915)
https://archive.org/details/thenewte...nuoft/page/n55
Then Jesus came forward to them and said, “Full authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth; go and make disciples of all nations, baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and teach them to obey all the commands I have laid on you. And I will be with you all the time, to the very end of the world.”

The AV is superior, however at least there is no major mangling.

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

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Had this phrase been in existence and use, it is incredible that some trace of it should not have survived; whereas the earliest reference to it, outside of this passage, is in Clem. Rom. and the Didache…” (p. 648).

This was a puzzling quote. Clement of Rome and the Didache are considered to be two of the earliest Christian writings after the New Testament.

And within the New Testament, Matthew 28:19 and the verses in Acts form a beautiful doctrinal harmony.

[Steven Avery]

The quote from FZ is wrong, doctored in some physically small but important ways, to hide the fact that the attacks referenced by Moffat from others are on five verses.

He misquotes the start of the sentence, begins with "So,"the capital "S" is doctored, because he wants to omit

"28 16-20 A later appendix"

since that will tell the reader that the context is an attack on the full section of five verse.

And the sentence does not end with "second century", it says,

"second century, century (vi. pp. 368-373, v. pp. 338,339), but recapitulating some genuine commands of Jesus."

FZ leaves this out so the reader does not realize that Keim is attacking the whole section.

=========

The next quote, although basically true, is similarly designed to hide the context, which you can read in the url above, and again is attacking the whole section. Plus I pointed out above a puzzle about the "earliest reference" aspect.

[Scott Pitta]

Eldon Epp explored motive in his Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts.

Juan Hernandez Jr explored the same issue in his Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse.

I have read and reread the above titles, but I have not read Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri by James Royse.

Are you familiar with these titles ?

Proving changes to the text are do to theology and not to other factors is nearly impossible.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Eldon Epp explored motive in his Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts. Juan Hernandez Jr explored the same issue in his Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse. I have read and reread the above titles, but I have not read Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri by James Royse. Are you familiar with these titles ? Proving changes to the text are do to theology and not to other factors is nearly impossible.

Epp's book is available in Preview mode
https://books.google.com/books?id=_X4FMng91KcC

It has not really been on my radar.

The Hernandez book is on Preview also:
https://books.google.com/books?id=8C1YlHaGpooC

And I made some notes on it, but they mostly relate to the fact of Sinaiticus being an 1800s production.

The Royse book is significant, because it is one of a few studies that confirm the simple truth that the lectio brevior nonsense of textual criticism is really wrong. However, the modern textual critics are generally wrong, so that is not a big surprise. Some of the good stuff is around here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=oWyej_jGSGYC&pg=PA729

[Scott Pitta]

Once I wrap up the Harry Morse project, I will resume research in NT TC.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

None of what you have posted is evidence, though. You are just posting 19th and 20th century people's opinions on how the apostolic church baptized, along with citations from people who don't even believe Jesus rose from the dead.

Not one shred of evidence concerning THE TEXT OF MATTHEW.

you are kind of impatient, aren't you?

[FlamingZword]

The Journal of Theological Studies (1901-1902) Vol 3 p. 181 “The great Baptismal formula of Mt. xxviii 19 again is cited as 'supremely authoritative,' without the slightest reference to the fact that the language of St. Paul about Baptism, 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,' and the well-attested employment of such a formula in the early Church, have suggested grave doubts as to whether we have before us in this passage words which really came from the lips of Christ.”

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

you are kind of impatient, aren't you?

He isn't impatient. He just getting tired of watching the thread get longer but no solid evidence. Again, you propose that Matthew is a botched document. One that was originally in a language other than the Greek manuscripts which have been preserved to us. Your own translation that you are trying to sell isn't from a Hebrew original correct? But from English Bibles, written to suit your own thoughts and feelings? You aren't a Hebrew or Aramaic scholar, you sure aren't a Greek scholar. So, that would lead everyone to believe that what you are trying to hand us is just opinions on what you feel should be written in the Bible. This is all about truth correct? But you aren't giving us that, but mere opinions. Impatient? No, just a little head shaking that you are so blind about what you are getting yourself into. Sorry.