The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Scott Pitta]

Our NT is based on the Greek New Testament. Not on rumors or secondary readings in other languages.

Shall we replace solid Greek readings with secondary readings from other languages ? If that be the case, which other readings will change in Matthew ? Be very specific in your response.

[FlamingZword]

There are plenty of ancient citations of Matthew 28:19 that use the text "in my name" instead of the traditional trinitarian text.

If the trinitarian text was the original, then why would some ancient sources used "in my name" at that place instead of the trinitarian text? please explain these ancient citations.

If the Matthew citation is authentic, then please explain why it is in no other place in the New Testament. While the phrase "in my name" is all over the place.

It is clear that all the early scriptures were all in one accord and used "in my name" just like it is all over the book of acts. It is only the book of Matthew that has the single trinitarian citation. Baptism in the name of Jesus is in many places of the New Testament besides the book of Acts.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

There are plenty of ancient citations of Matthew 28:19 that use the text "in my name" instead of the traditional trinitarian text.

If the trinitarian text was the original, then why would some ancient sources used "in my name" at that place instead of the trinitarian text? please explain these ancient citations.

If the Matthew citation is authentic, then please explain why it is in no other place in the New Testament. While the phrase "in my name" is all over the place.

It is clear that all the early scriptures were all in one accord and used "in my name" just like it is all over the book of acts. It is only the book of Matthew that has the single trinitarian citation. Baptism in the name of Jesus is in many places of the New Testament besides the book of Acts.

Listen, my brother, your defense is totally based on conjecture. I can't teach something based on nothing more than hearsay. Some citation from an ancient scribe or scribes doesn't make a rock solid case. Why doesn't the title formula pop up in the Acts of the Apostles? Because we find the in Acts, their acts, their works. In Matthew 28 we find the instructions of Jesus on what they were to do. Also, the whole Matthew 28:19 being a forgery leans towards bigger more catastrophic issues. What else is banged up? If Trinitarian scribes tampered with the text to such an extent, then logically it begs the question? What else can I not trust. Sooner or later that heat seeking missile finds its way straight to verses YOU hold near and dear. Can O Worms my dear brother, Can O Worms.

[Scott Pitta]

There are no variant readings for Mt. 28:19. None.

Abandoning the text for secondary sources when there are no variant readings is quite problematic.

We translate from actual Greek manuscripts, not from conjecture.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

There are no variant readings for Mt. 28:19. None.

Abandoning the text for secondary sources when there are no variant readings is quite problematic.

We translate from actual Greek manuscripts, not from conjecture.

Thank Jesus for that.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

There are no variant readings for Mt. 28:19. None.

Abandoning the text for secondary sources when there are no variant readings is quite problematic.

We translate from actual Greek manuscripts, not from conjecture.

Yet we must keep in mind that those secondary sources are from the first centuries of the church not from this century or even last century. Those citations were not created by me or anyone in recent history, so their existence must be explained.

So yes I do consider those ancient citations of Mat 28:19 which use "in my name" as valid variant readings.

[Scott Pitta]

Are variant readings to be preferred to Greek manuscripts readings where there are no Greek variant readings ?

How many other changes should be made to the Greek text of Matthew based solely on secondary sources ?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Yet we must keep in mind that those secondary sources are from the first centuries of the church not from this century or even last century. Those citations were not created by me or anyone in recent history, so their existence must be explained.

So yes I do consider those ancient citations of Mat 28:19 which use "in my name" as valid variant readings.

What sort of logic is that? Just because it is an ancient commentary we must accept it as much as hundreds of manuscripts? That is like saying that we should accept the lost books of Eden. Because they are ancient and therefore should be considered as holding the same authority as scripture. My dear brother, don't you think that the translators also had those citations? But again, if Matthew 28:19 and the Johannine comma are forgeries what else is a forgery? You honestly can't see the can of worms you are opening up. We also have another poster who believes that the tribe of Dan was left out of the book of Revelation because it was originally Hebrew. That in its Greek form it is missing Dan due to some sort of Trinitarian conspiracy. Sometimes people see a Trinitarian under every bush. Trinitarians didn't put your Bible together. The Bible was put together way before Catholics ever knew what they were missing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Are variant readings to be preferred to Greek manuscripts readings where there are no Greek variant readings ?

How many other changes should be made to the Greek text of Matthew based solely on secondary sources ?

You can't, because that's just it. It is secondary sources.

It stands Bible translation on its ear.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Are variant readings to be preferred to Greek manuscripts readings where there are no Greek variant readings ?

How many other changes should be made to the Greek text of Matthew based solely on secondary sources ?

I am of the opinion that there are no Greek variant readings, precisely because the original was in Hebrew and it was in the translation into Greek that the change was made. So it would be obvious that there would not be any Greek variants.
What the real question should be is, were there any Hebrew manuscripts that had a variant text? and the answer to that is probably yes, we have plenty of evidence that the phrase "in my name " was in the Hebrew original of Matthew 28:19.