The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored

[Scott Pitta]

Colet is a new name for me. Erasmus was more of an editor. But we will include him, just for kicks.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Colet is a new name for me. Erasmus was more of an editor. But we will include him, just for kicks.

Really?

[seguidordejesus]

I wonder how many of them messed with the verses to bolster their pet doctrines - on which salvation rests.

[FlamingZword]

Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare (1856-1924), Professor of Theology at Oxford, was one of greatest critic of the traditional text of Matthew 28:19 and supporter of the ending “in my name”. Professor Conybeare says: “In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text, Matthew xxviii. 19, by adducing patristic evidence against it so weighty that in the future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the three witnesses.” The Hibbert Journal, Oxford, Vol. I, No. 1, October 1902, p. 103, 104.

[Scott Pitta]

FC Conyweare wrote a great commentary. But his opinion about this verse did not come true. Nearly 100 years after he wrote his observation, Mt. 28:19 is still unchanged.

Patristic evidence alone does not provide enough support to change the text of a passage if there is no manuscript evidence to support it.

[seguidordejesus]

What was the patristic evidence against it?

[Esaias]

Well, looks like nobody has the evidence I requested.

Therefore, I am forced to conclude the people promoting this idea are doing so because of what they would like to be true, rather than what actually is true. Kind of like the JW's with their so-called "translation".

But hey, we can all dream, right?

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Therefore, I am forced to conclude the people promoting this idea are doing so because of what they would like to be true, rather than what actually is true. Kind of like the JW's with their so-called "translation".

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, looks like nobody has the evidence I requested.

Therefore, I am forced to conclude the people promoting this idea are doing so because of what they would like to be true, rather than what actually is true. Kind of like the JW's with their so-called "translation".

But hey, we can all dream, right?

Conybeare wrote that in 1902, long before there were any JW's or oneness apostolics.

here is another learned person

Hans Kosmala (1903-1981), one of the greatest Christian experts in the study of Judaism. In his article “The Conclusion of Matthew”, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), pp. 132-147, writes; “go out make all nations disciples in my name.” This variant reading will be found in the critical apparatus of NESTLE’S and KIRKPATRICK’S editions. It looks as if texts with the shorter version of 28:19b still existed round about 300 A.D. He argued that the original ending of Matthew 28:19 was “in my name”, he also said: “There are many points in favor of the Eusebian conclusion of Matthew, far more than for the traditional conclusion.” , “We have seen that this formula is late beyond any doubt and this alone makes its appearance at so early a stage a historical impossibility. The only explanation we can give is that it has been inserted here by the later Church, because it needed it in that Gospel which was the most widely used in its liturgy.”

I agree with Conybeare and Kosmala.

[seguidordejesus]

What are the "many points in favor of the Eusebian conclusion of Matthew"? You've quoted two people who agree with you, but where are they drawing their conclusions from?