Scholars find Matt.28:19 to be fraudulent.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

How can it not be settled?

Every manuscript with the ending reads the same. So, gee, how do we translate it? Do we translate it according to how every manuscript reads? Or do we change it for a reading we like, that has ZERO MANUSCRIPT SUPPORT?

I mean, seriously, how can there be an argument? 'All the copies read ABC, but personally I think the original MAY have read XYZ, so let's abandon ABC in favor of XYZ.' What kind of reasoning is that? I'll tell you what kind - it's NOT 'reasoning' at all.

We do have at least one manuscript (The Shem Tov) that does not have the Trinitarian formula. so no the Zero manuscript support argument is not 100% true.

We also have plenty of external evidence and internal evidence which does not support the Trinitarian reading.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Your citations were debunked. YOU chose to ignore THAT.

You didn't debunk them, you simply dismissed them, anyone can do that.

[Scott Pitta]

Internal evidence ? That is interesting, at least to me. My focus is on Greek manuscripts.

But I do not see how a Hebrew manuscript of Matthew has anything to do with the textual history of Mt. 28:19.

I will look up the Shem Tov. OK, is it really from the 14th century ? Should we take all the variant readings from Shem Tov and incorporate them into the Greek text ? What is the textual history of the Shem Tov ? How has it changed via transmission from the time Matthew penned it until the 14th century copy we have today ?

I am not the sharpest mind in our group, but I may see a logical weakness formulating. Irenaeus says there was a Hebrew Matthew. 1200 years later, a Hebrew Matthew shows up. How do we know this is the same document that Irenaeus was referring to ? Is any Hebrew Matthew so much better than a Greek Matthew that all variant readings are to be incorporated into the Greek text ?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

We do have at least one manuscript (The Shem Tov) that does not have the Trinitarian formula. so no the Zero manuscript support argument is not 100% true.

We also have plenty of external evidence and internal evidence which does not support the Trinitarian reading.

*Respectfully, the Shem Tov is a joke & was demonstrated to be a very late Jewish forgery of Matthew eons ago now:

http://www.christianmediaresearch.co...nslations.html

http://oneinmessiah.net/HEBREWMATTHEW.htm


*Matthew 28.19 is not considered a viable and meaningful textual variant (nor any other kind of variant) & it appears in early Greek MSS.

*Below is an email response I received from renowned text-critic Dr. Daniel Wallace in 2012 on this passage:

The notion that Matt 28.19-20 is not authentic goes back to a scholar from 100 years ago, based on his misreading of Eusebius's comments on this text. His views have long since been debunked. I don't know about any EARLY Mathean Gospel in Hebrew, though I am aware of some medieval copies.

[rdp]

*The following is copied from a hermeneutics site dealing w. text-criticism (we obviously would not accept the theological assertions here, but the MS evidence is interesting nonetheless):

The originality of the short version of the verse fails in regards to both physical/manuscript evidence and logic.
Manuscript Evidence I: Matthew

Even though critics of trinitarians claim there is a mountain of historical evidence, there actually isn't. Another answer on this site lays out the manuscripts of Matthew. No manuscript of Matthew is known that has the short form of the verse. Even though the critical texts used by scholars lay out all kinds of textual variants throughout the NT, my copy of NA-27 does not list any variants on Matthew 28:19. Even though it lists out variants on 18 and 20, there are none for 19. When looking beyond Greek, all ancient translations have the long reading of Matthew (Latin, Syriac, etc).

One might point out the Hebrew translation of Matthew known as Shem Tob. While it does not have the long reading, it does not count for several reasons.

It dates from the late 1300s (the medieval period, not antiquity). Far too late to be of any significant textual help.
It doesn't even have the short reading of "baptizing in my name." Instead, Matt 28:19-20 reads "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." It mentions nothing of baptizing at all.

Bart Ehrman, a noted textual critic who is neither a Christian nor a trinitarian (in fact, he describes himself as an agnostic) agrees that the long form of the verse is original. The same blog reproducing Ehrman on this passage has a statement from another New Testament scholar who is also an authority on Eusebius. He notes:

Eusebius' short form (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 the only textual evidence for the short reading
Eusebius tends to abbreviate elsewhere
Eusebius quotes the long form in Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; and Theophania 4.8

It is worth noting that Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica, one of the places where he is supposed to be quoting the short version of Matthew 28:19, also "quotes" Philippians 2:9. However, the statement is certainly not a quotation:

Eusebius writes is as:

God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.

However, the full text is:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Eusebius is certainly refering to Phil 2:9f, but his writing of it is not a quotation.

Manuscript Evidence II: Quotation from the Church Fathers

Text critics don't just look at manuscripts of the text. They also examine quotations of passages in early writers. All quotations of Matthew 28:19 that include the "name" formula have the long version and not the short.

Didache 7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

Tertullain On Baptism paragraph 13 Go, he says, teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Tertullian Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".

Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII

Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus,

Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian and others.

In total, searching only those Fathers prior to Nicea, I found 24 quotations of Matthew 28:19 using the full formula. There were no quotations among these writers with the short version. There were also quotations of the verse where they stopped prior to the list of names (i.e. "he commanded us to teach all nations"). I did not count those. In several of these, the full quote provides the basis for the argument supplied in the rest of the paragraph.


Logical Evidence

A third way in which the longer form can be seen to be original is to simply apply logic to the argument for the shorter as a conspiracy. The argument is that some faction of the Church (obviously representing the majority as this view won):

Wanted the trinity formula in Matthew.
Willfully altered manucsripts of Matthew 28:19.
Sought out and destroyed all manuscripts of Matthew 28:19 containing the short reading.
Then went through the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers and altered their quotations of Matthew, destroying all other copies.

However, these conspirators, who had so little respect for Scripture that they altered it and were so careful as to destroy every copy of Matthew with the short reading, left intact the so-called original verse in Luke 24:47 (which is not a baptismal formula and is not a parallel to Matthew 28:19)* and all references to Jesus' name baptism in Acts and the Epistles! If this willful alteration is being done in Matthew, why stop there? Why not change Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48; and 19:5?

These five verses in Acts all refer to Jesus' name baptism or being baptized in Jesus' name (once, in the name of our Lord). None of them have textual variants of a "trinitarian formula." Logically, if the conspirators made the change once, they would make the change in other places. At the time which this conspiracy is supposed to have taken place (Nicea, AD 325), the de-facto canon had been used and recognized since Irenaeus. Matthew, Luke, and Acts were already recognized as Scripture.

*Matthew 28 takes place in Galillee while Luke's is in Jerusalem. Luke contains only statements of repentance and remission of sins while Matthew also speaks of teaching and baptism.

Another failing of this conspiracy is that they missed Eusebius, one of their contemporaries. Eusebius was a trinitarian and a powerful figure in the church. Yet, while they changed all quotations of Matthew 28:19 from the short to long in all the Ante-Nicean Church Fathers, they missed a few places in Eusebius but got his others. How did they manage to get all of the others yet miss some of one of their own?

If this were a conspiracy, it was a rather inept conspiracy as it left intact so many other verses in Scripture while managing to replace all versions of Matthew 28:19 with the new one.

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.co...w-2819-changed


*Metzger, NA28, UBS-5 do not list Matthew 28.19 as a viable variant - though they do list numerous other variants in both context & the book of Matthew.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You didn't debunk them, you simply dismissed them, anyone can do that.

Nothing was dismissed my dear brother and friend.

Yet, it looks like you are being the one who is refusing to accept what is being placed before you.

I hope you consider what is being presented before you.

[Michael The Disciple]

Peshitta Aramaic......Lamsa Version

Matthew 28:19 - Go, therefore, and convert all nations; and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit;

At present the Aramaic is the closest to an original Hebrew we have. When and if an older Hebrew copy is found it will contain the same reading IMO.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Peshitta Aramaic......Lamsa Version

Matthew 28:19 - Go, therefore, and convert all nations; and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit;

At present the Aramaic is the closest to an original Hebrew we have. When and if an older Hebrew copy is found it will contain the same reading IMO.

Micheal do you know how Lamsa translated his Peshitta Bible? Or the basis of the Eastern Orthodox Syriac Bible?

The New Testament is based on Greek originals.

You will find the Loch Ness monster's eyeballs before you ever find a Hebrew original for any portion of the New Testament.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by rdp

*The following is copied from a hermeneutics site dealing w. text-criticism (we obviously would not accept the theological assertions here, but the MS evidence is interesting nonetheless):

The originality of the short version of the verse fails in regards to both physical/manuscript evidence and logic.
Manuscript Evidence I: Matthew

Even though critics of trinitarians claim there is a mountain of historical evidence, there actually isn't. Another answer on this site lays out the manuscripts of Matthew. No manuscript of Matthew is known that has the short form of the verse. Even though the critical texts used by scholars lay out all kinds of textual variants throughout the NT, my copy of NA-27 does not list any variants on Matthew 28:19. Even though it lists out variants on 18 and 20, there are none for 19. When looking beyond Greek, all ancient translations have the long reading of Matthew (Latin, Syriac, etc).

One might point out the Hebrew translation of Matthew known as Shem Tob. While it does not have the long reading, it does not count for several reasons.

It dates from the late 1300s (the medieval period, not antiquity). Far too late to be of any significant textual help.
It doesn't even have the short reading of "baptizing in my name." Instead, Matt 28:19-20 reads "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." It mentions nothing of baptizing at all.

Bart Ehrman, a noted textual critic who is neither a Christian nor a trinitarian (in fact, he describes himself as an agnostic) agrees that the long form of the verse is original. The same blog reproducing Ehrman on this passage has a statement from another New Testament scholar who is also an authority on Eusebius. He notes:

Eusebius' short form (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 the only textual evidence for the short reading
Eusebius tends to abbreviate elsewhere
Eusebius quotes the long form in Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; and Theophania 4.8

It is worth noting that Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica, one of the places where he is supposed to be quoting the short version of Matthew 28:19, also "quotes" Philippians 2:9. However, the statement is certainly not a quotation:

Eusebius writes is as:

God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.

However, the full text is:

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Eusebius is certainly refering to Phil 2:9f, but his writing of it is not a quotation.

Manuscript Evidence II: Quotation from the Church Fathers

Text critics don't just look at manuscripts of the text. They also examine quotations of passages in early writers. All quotations of Matthew 28:19 that include the "name" formula have the long version and not the short.

Didache 7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

Tertullain On Baptism paragraph 13 Go, he says, teach the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Tertullian Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".

Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII

Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.--Against the Heresy of One Noetus,

Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian and others.

In total, searching only those Fathers prior to Nicea, I found 24 quotations of Matthew 28:19 using the full formula. There were no quotations among these writers with the short version. There were also quotations of the verse where they stopped prior to the list of names (i.e. "he commanded us to teach all nations"). I did not count those. In several of these, the full quote provides the basis for the argument supplied in the rest of the paragraph.


Logical Evidence

A third way in which the longer form can be seen to be original is to simply apply logic to the argument for the shorter as a conspiracy. The argument is that some faction of the Church (obviously representing the majority as this view won):

Wanted the trinity formula in Matthew.
Willfully altered manucsripts of Matthew 28:19.
Sought out and destroyed all manuscripts of Matthew 28:19 containing the short reading.
Then went through the writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers and altered their quotations of Matthew, destroying all other copies.

However, these conspirators, who had so little respect for Scripture that they altered it and were so careful as to destroy every copy of Matthew with the short reading, left intact the so-called original verse in Luke 24:47 (which is not a baptismal formula and is not a parallel to Matthew 28:19)* and all references to Jesus' name baptism in Acts and the Epistles! If this willful alteration is being done in Matthew, why stop there? Why not change Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48; and 19:5?

These five verses in Acts all refer to Jesus' name baptism or being baptized in Jesus' name (once, in the name of our Lord). None of them have textual variants of a "trinitarian formula." Logically, if the conspirators made the change once, they would make the change in other places. At the time which this conspiracy is supposed to have taken place (Nicea, AD 325), the de-facto canon had been used and recognized since Irenaeus. Matthew, Luke, and Acts were already recognized as Scripture.

*Matthew 28 takes place in Galillee while Luke's is in Jerusalem. Luke contains only statements of repentance and remission of sins while Matthew also speaks of teaching and baptism.

Another failing of this conspiracy is that they missed Eusebius, one of their contemporaries. Eusebius was a trinitarian and a powerful figure in the church. Yet, while they changed all quotations of Matthew 28:19 from the short to long in all the Ante-Nicean Church Fathers, they missed a few places in Eusebius but got his others. How did they manage to get all of the others yet miss some of one of their own?

If this were a conspiracy, it was a rather inept conspiracy as it left intact so many other verses in Scripture while managing to replace all versions of Matthew 28:19 with the new one.

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.co...w-2819-changed


*Metzger, NA28, UBS-5 do not list Matthew 28.19 as a viable variant - though they do list numerous other variants in both context & the book of Matthew.

All these arguments you have presented have already been rebutted in the book "The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored". Nothing new here in your citations. Every single one of these allegations is taken apart and destroyed in the pages of this book.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Nothing was dismissed my dear brother and friend.

Yet, it looks like you are being the one who is refusing to accept what is being placed before you.

I hope you consider what is being presented before you.

This what is presented is old stuff that has already been dealt with and totally has been refuted.

The response is in the book "The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored".