Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Your translation project however throws away the ENTIRE available manuscript evidence in favor of a QUOTATION by ONE GUY in the FOURTH CENTURY.

This is incorrect it is not only a QUOTATION by ONE GUY.

I already shown you that there is more than one person citing Matthew in such manner, plus there is a whole lot more evidence that supports this text. So no I am not relying upon ONE Guy.

Plenty of evidence in the book "The original Matthew 28:19 Restored"

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.”

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by 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.

I repeat myself again, we are not going by the Greek text, for the original Matthew was written in Hebrew, so most likely the mistranslated verse was done when someone translated it from the original Hebrew to the Greek.

Yes there is plenty of evidence that the original Matthew was written in Hebrew.

[Scott Pitta]

There is no manuscript evidence of a Hebrew Matthew. There are zero early Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew. None.

Therefore, it is pure conjecture to say a sentence was mistranslated when there are no manuscripts to compare the translation to.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

There is no manuscript evidence of a Hebrew Matthew. There are zero early Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew. None.

Therefore, it is pure conjecture to say a sentence was mistranslated when there are no manuscripts to compare the translation to.

We have the testimony of over 16 highly reliable and educated ancient witnesses which affirmed that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew, not only that but the internal evidence from the Gospel itself shows that it was originally a Hebrew work.

[Scott Pitta]

We do not assemble texts of NT literature based exclusively on the testimony of early church fathers. Translators translate NT manuscripts. There are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew that we now possess.

We do have manuscripts of NT literature in other languages. We do have early church father quotes. But they are not the same as NT manuscripts.

In an interest to cover new ideas, gather other quotes from the Hebrew Matthew and compare them to the Greek text of Matthew. Surely there are other quotes from the Hebrew Matthew in the early church fathers. Find them. List them here.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

...not only that but the internal evidence from the Gospel itself shows that it was originally a Hebrew work.

This is false. Matthew 1:23 is a quotation from the GREEK Isaiah, not the Hebrew Isaiah, showing the author of Matthew was using Greek. Also, that same verse INTERPRETS the meaning of Emmanuel, which only makes sense if it was written in Greek. A Hebrew text is not going to INTERPRET a Hebrew word for a Hebrew-reading audience.

Furthermore, the majority of the rest of the OT quotations in Matthew are taken from the GREEK OT, showing that Matthew was using a GREEK Bible, familiar with Greek, and therefore writing in Greek.

There is NO evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. The supposed allusions to a Hebrew original are irrelevant for two reasons:

1. The actual ancient claim is that Matthew wrote an account in Hebrew, NOT that the then-current Gospel according to Matthew was originally in Hebrew. In other words, a SEPARATE WORK.

2. No Hebrew original has ever been found. So EVEN IF Matthew's Gospel was originally in Hebrew, GOD HIMSELF CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE IT, and INSTEAD God CHOSE TO PRESERVE HIS GREEK GOSPEL. Therefore, we MUST use the Greek.

YOU are promoting that we abandon the Gospel that GOD PRESERVED and instead go with something y'all are MAKING UP AS YOU GO ALONG THAT HAS NO BASIS IN ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

We don't conform the Bible to our beliefs, we conform our beliefs to the Bible.

[Scott Pitta]

OT quotes in the NT are extremely interesting and equally complex. Some quotes are from the Hebrew, some are from the Greek. Some are neither.

If I recall, authors of NT literature are inconsistent in how they quote the OT in the NT.

I would need to review the theological literature before making any observations here. It has been a long time since I researched OT quotes in the NT.

[Esaias]

85% LXX, 10-12% MT, the rest unknown/paraphrased/unique.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is false. Matthew 1:23 is a quotation from the GREEK Isaiah, not the Hebrew Isaiah, showing the author of Matthew was using Greek. Also, that same verse INTERPRETS the meaning of Emmanuel, which only makes sense if it was written in Greek. A Hebrew text is not going to INTERPRET a Hebrew word for a Hebrew-reading audience.

Furthermore, the majority of the rest of the OT quotations in Matthew are taken from the GREEK OT, showing that Matthew was using a GREEK Bible, familiar with Greek, and therefore writing in Greek.

There is NO evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. The supposed allusions to a Hebrew original are irrelevant for two reasons:

1. The actual ancient claim is that Matthew wrote an account in Hebrew, NOT that the then-current Gospel according to Matthew was originally in Hebrew. In other words, a SEPARATE WORK.

2. No Hebrew original has ever been found. So EVEN IF Matthew's Gospel was originally in Hebrew, GOD HIMSELF CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE IT, and INSTEAD God CHOSE TO PRESERVE HIS GREEK GOSPEL. Therefore, we MUST use the Greek.

YOU are promoting that we abandon the Gospel that GOD PRESERVED and instead go with something y'all are MAKING UP AS YOU GO ALONG THAT HAS NO BASIS IN ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

We don't conform the Bible to our beliefs, we conform our beliefs to the Bible.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is false. Matthew 1:23 is a quotation from the GREEK Isaiah, not the Hebrew Isaiah, showing the author of Matthew was using Greek. Also, that same verse INTERPRETS the meaning of Emmanuel, which only makes sense if it was written in Greek. A Hebrew text is not going to INTERPRET a Hebrew word for a Hebrew-reading audience.

Furthermore, the majority of the rest of the OT quotations in Matthew are taken from the GREEK OT, showing that Matthew was using a GREEK Bible, familiar with Greek, and therefore writing in Greek.

There is NO evidence that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. The supposed allusions to a Hebrew original are irrelevant for two reasons:

1. The actual ancient claim is that Matthew wrote an account in Hebrew, NOT that the then-current Gospel according to Matthew was originally in Hebrew. In other words, a SEPARATE WORK.

2. No Hebrew original has ever been found. So EVEN IF Matthew's Gospel was originally in Hebrew, GOD HIMSELF CHOSE NOT TO PRESERVE IT, and INSTEAD God CHOSE TO PRESERVE HIS GREEK GOSPEL. Therefore, we MUST use the Greek.

YOU are promoting that we abandon the Gospel that GOD PRESERVED and instead go with something y'all are MAKING UP AS YOU GO ALONG THAT HAS NO BASIS IN ANYTHING EXCEPT YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

We don't conform the Bible to our beliefs, we conform our beliefs to the Bible.

David Brown writes, “It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord”