The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You can find many of those Non-trintarian Matthew gospels in Amazon, please do not be lazy. I spent my hard earned money to buy many of them.

Manuscripts?

The Matthew Shem Tob is a Rabbinical forgery?

[Scott Pitta]

Nontrinitarian Matthew gospels.

Please define that term.

[Aquila]

Here are some things a friend sent me on this:

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

[Scott Pitta]

James Hastings edited his works over a century ago. Rather data material.

The others offer no evidence for their hypothesis.

For example, there are no Greek manuscripts that have been changed or altered in Mt. 28:19.

Where is the actual evidence of changes to the Greek text of Mt. 28:19 ??

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here are some things a friend sent me on this:

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

You do understand that this isn't dealing with Matthew 28:19 being spurious? But that the actual historical evolution of a formula being modified by the Churchmen over time. Chris, do you understand what this thread is proposing?

You do understand we are looking for evidence, not assumptions.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You do understand that this isn't dealing with Matthew 28:19 being spurious? But that the actual historical evolution of a formula being modified by the Churchmen over time.

Some of the quptes imply the traditional text is spurious. Against basically all ms evidence, in all languages. Bogus pretentious non-scholarship. And without understanding the spiritual harmony of Matthew 28:19 and the Acts verses.

[Scott Pitta]

Steve is correct.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Some of the quptes imply the traditional text is spurious. Against basically all ms evidence, in all languages. Bogus pretentious non-scholarship. And without understanding the spiritual harmony of Matthew 28:19 and the Acts verses.

Still arguments based on assumptions don't prove anything yea or nay.

Ther quotes are manly dealing with the evolution of baptism formulas being changed. Therefore making that change evidence of textual tampering.

[Scott Pitta]

Charges without manuscript evidence are conjecture.

Shall we make changes to the text based on conjecture when there is no manuscript evidence to support such changes ?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Charges without manuscript evidence are conjecture.

Shall we make changes to the text based on conjecture when there is no manuscript evidence to support such changes ?

If the blind lead the blind they both fall into a ditch.