The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Nontrinitarian Matthew gospels.

Please define that term.

It means gospels of Matthew which do not have the trinitarian text at Mat 28:19.

We have also many ancient citations, of Matthew 28:19 without the trinitarian text.

Eusebius had a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and he cited 18 times the text using the phrase "In my name"
Demonstratio Evangelica (The Proof of the Gospel) Book 3
1. 3:6 With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." And He joined the effect to His Word;

and Eusebius also made over 100 allusions linking the name of Jesus to the great commission in his writings.

The following ancient citations back up this text.
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.”

All these citations go back many hundredths of years.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Eusebius had a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

Please give the precise citation that Eusebius had a Hebrew of our canonical Matthew.

Thanks!

Steven

[Scott Pitta]

So the new rule is to replace phrases or sentences with quotes from early church fathers even when there is no actual variant reading in any of the Greek NT manuscripts ?

How does one consistently apply such a rule in the rest of Matthew chapter 28 ? Shall we introduce readings based on early father quotes into the text ?

Shall readings from early church fathers be preferred to readings from the actual manuscripts ?

Please show us how that works for the rest of Matthew chapter 28.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

So the new rule is to replace phrases or sentences with quotes from early church fathers even when there is no actual variant reading in any of the Greek NT manuscripts ?

How often do oneness pentecostals say that they baptized in the name of Jesus. Referring to Matthew, Acts and any other scripture?

So the early church writer quotes have no value unless they are specifically in the context of Matthew 28. (Except for supporting baptism in Jesus name.) And the one case there, Eusebius, is split, and comes long after many early church writers had used the titles in their writings referencing Matthew 28:19.

Should we list, once again, all the writers before Eusebius who use the titles?

So there is nothing to put up against the thousands of Greek, Latin and Syriac mss. As well as Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian and various other versions.

Those few oneness teachers who have gotten on this hobby horse should be totally rejected as Bible correcters. That type of stuff will tinge many of their "teachings".

When I looked into Matthew 28:19 some years ago, which is about the dumbest Bible correction attempt going, I noticed Marvin Arnold, Clinton T. Willis, Cohen Reckhart, Marion Fretwell, Mark Kennicott, and Randall Duane Hughes among those with some sort of apostolic perspective that were taking this absurd position against the purity of the Bible. They were all trying to run with the Conybeare stuff and had close to zero ability to actually look at the evidences forthrightly.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...8&postcount=76

Peter Head actually gave a decent summary! Which was published on a blog in 2007, without even seeing the harmony of the Matthew and Acts verses. And putting aside NA27/USB4, as stopped clocks are right twice a day.

L. Ray Smith and Matthew 28:19
https://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2007/07...-matthew-2819/

There is obviously an issue here, but only evidence for the shorter text of Matthew 28.19 is found only in Eusebius, and may well be the product of his loose quotation and harmonising. Here is what I wrote in my book (Christology and the Synoptic Problem, CUP, 1997), 212f:

We follow here the longer reading of UBS4=NA27 for Matt 28.19. Eusebius’ shorter reading (otherwise unattested): πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τά έθνη έν τω όνόματι μου, διδάσκοντες… [Demonstratio 3.6, 7(bis); 9.11; Hist. Eccl. III.5.2; Psalms 65.6; 67.34; 76.20 (59.9 not the same reading); Isaiah 18.2; 34.16 (v.l.); Theophania 4.16; 5.17; 5.46; 5.49; Oratio 16.8] is not to be regarded as original (despite Conybeare, ‘The Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19’; ‘Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels’, pp. 102-108; History of New Testament Criticism, pp. 74-77; Lohmeyer, Matthäus, p. 412; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, p. 200; Green, ‘The Command to Baptize and Other Matthean Interpolations’, pp. 60-62; ‘Matthew 28:19, Eusebius, and the lex orandi’).The omission of the phrase can be explained as due to Eusebius’ tendency to abbreviate, as Eusebius elsewhere often cites the longer form [Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; Theophania 4.8]. The shorter reading ‘in my name’ could have been formed as a result of harmonising Luke 24.47 and Mark 16.17 (as seems to occur in Psalms 59.9). Note that Eusebius also alludes to this passage without using either ‘in my name’ or the full clause [Demonstratio 1.3, 4, 6; Psalms 46.4; 95.3; 144.9; Isaiah 41.10; Theophania 3.4; Theologia III.3]. See further Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning, pp. 151-175; Schaberg, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, pp. 27-29 (who refer to earlier studies).

Steven

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Please give the precise citation that Eusebius had a Hebrew of our canonical Matthew.

Thanks!

Steven

Here it is

“Matthew…composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”
Jerome

Now will you convert and accept the truth or will continue in disbelief.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

How often do oneness pentecostals say that they baptized in the name of Jesus. Referring to Matthew, Acts and any other scripture?

So the early church writer quotes have no value unless they are specifically in the context of Matthew 28. (Except for supporting baptism in Jesus name.) And the one case there, Eusebius, is split, and comes long after many early church writers had used the titles in their writings referencing Matthew 28:19.

Should we list, once again, all the writers before Eusebius who use the titles?

So there is nothing to put up against the thousands of Greek, Latin and Syriac mss. As well as Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian and various other versions.

Those few oneness teachers who have gotten on this hobby horse should be totally rejected as Bible correcters. That type of stuff will tinge many of their "teachings".



Peter Head actually gave a decent summary! Which was published on a blog in 2007, without even seeing the harmony of the Matthew and Acts verses. And putting aside NA27/USB4, as stopped clocks are right twice a day.

L. Ray Smith and Matthew 28:19
https://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2007/07...-matthew-2819/

Steven

All these arguments are debunked in my book, "The original Matthew 28:19 Restored".

[Scott Pitta]

So we should erase Mt. 28:19 as it is consistently recorded in the Greek manuscripts and replace it with a quote from a church father.

What would the rest of Mt. chapter 28 look like if we replaced the Greek readings with church father readings ??


Do readings from church fathers have more importance than readings for which there are no variant reading ??

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Here it is“Matthew…composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”
Jerome

Now will you convert and accept the truth or will continue in disbelief.

Jerome is not Eusebius. Stop being deceitful.

Read the whole section, what Jerome says about that work, and you learn that it is not canonical Matthew. Again, stop being deceitful.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

All these arguments are debunked in my book, "The original Matthew 28:19 Restored".

I’ve read enough of your arguments here to know they are worthless. Like your post right above.

Plus, you are claiming to “debunk” factual references. If there are any factual errors, share away.

[Aquila]

I'm no scholar. But these questions come to mind as I read this thread:

What if the scribal commentary isn't a reference to an older text? What if it only demonstrates that even they could see that Matthew 28:19 is actually a reference to the name of Jesus?