Was Matt.28:19 Tampered With ?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Baron,

Doesn't the opinions of these people who are far more educated in this area and far more familiar with the history involved matter at all?

It is not like their opinions could be called uninformed.

I have read the other opinions and there are many many more in favor of the long reading than the short.

My point should be clear. The main source for the shorter reading also quoted the longer reading several times.

There is not a single manuscript of the verse with the reading being proposed here. NOT A SINGLE MANUSCRIPT.

There are several early church fathers that predate the source for this shorter reading and all of them quote the longer reading.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Baron,

Doesn't the opinions of these people who are far more educated in this area and far more familiar with the history involved matter at all?

It is not like their opinions could be called uninformed.

Brother Davidson, what is being asked for, is a copy, or the original source for a manuscript. While the opinions and commentaries of scholars can give a great amount of food for thought, we still need to be able to find the earliest document that would even allude to any tampering of the text. To me, I have no problem with Matthew 28:19 in the way it is written, and find that bringing up translation tampering only muddies the water during a Bible study. If we could find solid proof of an alternate reading, then hooray! Yet, if we can't, then all we can do is wonder.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I must agree, the Shem Tov Matthew is a mediaeval manuscript, which is not credible at all. Also while my dear friend and Brother Aquila posted some very interesting quotes from different scholars, we still don't have a manuscript that has the supposed missing Matthew 28:19. The fact is this, we would need the proof of parchment.

So, does anyone have information on the original manuscript, which contains the alternate Matthew 28:19?

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

EB?

Are we on the same side of this one?

One of us must be wrong!!!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

EB?

Are we on the same side of this one?

One of us must be wrong!!!

[SteppingStone]

Maybe we should ask the people who changed it themselves:

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."

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by SteppingStone

Maybe we should ask the people who changed it themselves:

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."

Wow let's do that...

Oh wait that doesn't say anything about Matthew 28:19...

Again not a single manuscript...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I have read the other opinions and there are many many more in favor of the long reading than the short.

My point should be clear. The main source for the shorter reading also quoted the longer reading several times.

There is not a single manuscript of the verse with the reading being proposed here. NOT A SINGLE MANUSCRIPT.

There are several early church fathers that predate the source for this shorter reading and all of them quote the longer reading.

That is correct. If there was though modern textual critics would probably have to accept the shorter since the shorter is to be preferred...assuming that it's more likely in the case of ancient MS that words were added rather than omitted...or do I have that backwards?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by SteppingStone

Maybe we should ask the people who changed it themselves:

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."

SS, here is the problem...can you find that Encyclopedia and quote the context? We don't know the full context of what this is saying. Is this talking about practice or is this talking about changing the verse in Mat?

These quotes from tracts are not good evidence in discussions like these without the context and or the ability for us to all look at it

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That is correct. If there was though modern textual critics would probably have to accept the shorter since the shorter is to be preferred...assuming that it's more likely in the case of ancient MS that words were added rather than omitted...or do I have that backwards?

You have it correct as far as the philosophy behind the Westcott-Hort school of thought.

The other view is the majority of manuscripts are correct, regardless of the length of the verse.

[Praxeas]

WE have a LOT of Evidence...unfortunately all it is evidence of is scholarship (even Trinitarian) theorizing on the original autograph. Nothing more. It's interesting but not evidence that the original was changed across the board (meaning all extant MSS)