Yes Matthew 28:19 is a fabrication.
the original text did not included the trinity.
it simply said "in my name"
the original text did not included the trinity.
it simply said "in my name"
Matthew 28:19 is spurious
- Thread starter FlamingZword
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
To my knowledge, its in all bible versions and its in the Greek manuscripts "Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). Suffice to say, its not in the original manuscript because the originals no longer exist, only copies. You may be thinking of this verse? "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7). Also known as the Comma Johanneum, the verse is in many Latin manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries, but only found in eight late Greek manuscripts. Most scholars don't believe it was in the original manuscripts, so modern versions are translated from Greek texts without the addition.. I personally think the verse does belong in the bible, here are a couple of sites that agree;FlamingZword said:
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/KJV/early-manuscript-evidence-for-including-1-john-5-7-king-james-version.htm
the stranger
New Member
Matthew 28:19 is an early fabrication.
The original Hebrew text said "In my name"
Eusebius testified about it over 18 times.
www.one-lord.org
The original Hebrew text said "In my name"
Eusebius testified about it over 18 times.
www.one-lord.org
There is no 'original Hebrew text
.There is no "original Hebrew text." You can't just make things up. Do the manuscript research.FlamingZword said:
FlamingZword said:
Seventeen early writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.
Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”
Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”
Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned shall rest.”
Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”
Epiphanius 370 AD “They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.”
Jerome 382 AD “Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists 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. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist…. makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew.”
Hegesippus, Hippolytus, Ephrem the Syrian, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Cyrrhus, Mario Mercator, Annarikhus, Didymus (the blind), Philip Sidetes, Pantaenus and many others also mention this Hebrew Gospel. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009) by New Testament scholar James R. Edwards.
www.one-lord.org
Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”
Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”
Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned shall rest.”
Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”
Epiphanius 370 AD “They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.”
Jerome 382 AD “Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists 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. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist…. makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew.”
Hegesippus, Hippolytus, Ephrem the Syrian, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Cyrrhus, Mario Mercator, Annarikhus, Didymus (the blind), Philip Sidetes, Pantaenus and many others also mention this Hebrew Gospel. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009) by New Testament scholar James R. Edwards.
www.one-lord.org
The apostles teach us to honor scripture for it is God breathed, meaning the true writings and verbal story telling through the Jews and apostles were given by God, the Holy Spirit.
We should not worship the bible, nor suggest it was written by God, many christians call it the Word Of God, but they should not, it is mans writings, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Much of the bible is indeed God breathed, but many newer bibles will have in their footnotes questionable verses or chapters that were added and not found in earlier documents.
This does not discredit the teachings from the bible or change its meaning or teaching of truth.
We should not worship the bible, nor suggest it was written by God, many christians call it the Word Of God, but they should not, it is mans writings, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Much of the bible is indeed God breathed, but many newer bibles will have in their footnotes questionable verses or chapters that were added and not found in earlier documents.
This does not discredit the teachings from the bible or change its meaning or teaching of truth.
Moved to the Unorthodox forum because this particular assertion is tied to further unorthodox theology.
Wormwood
Chaps
FlamingZ,
First, there are no sources for your quotes. You cite a sketchy website. I looked at it and couldnt find the quotes you mentioned. If you can show some sources that argue for early texts written in the Hebrew, great. Second, even if there is speculation of such texts, it does not prove that in the "Hebrew" version that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28 is omitted. Do you have some kind of manuscript evidence that points to an early Hebrew Gospel that omits this? Nothing I have seen in textual studies shows that we possess an early Hebrew text, or that such a text omits these words. Even if it did exist, just because it is written in Hebrew does not make it more reliable. All the earliest manuscripts are in Greek.
First, there are no sources for your quotes. You cite a sketchy website. I looked at it and couldnt find the quotes you mentioned. If you can show some sources that argue for early texts written in the Hebrew, great. Second, even if there is speculation of such texts, it does not prove that in the "Hebrew" version that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28 is omitted. Do you have some kind of manuscript evidence that points to an early Hebrew Gospel that omits this? Nothing I have seen in textual studies shows that we possess an early Hebrew text, or that such a text omits these words. Even if it did exist, just because it is written in Hebrew does not make it more reliable. All the earliest manuscripts are in Greek.
[SIZE=medium]Demonstratio Evangelica[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] ([/SIZE][SIZE=medium]The Proof of the Gospel[/SIZE][SIZE=medium])[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]Book 3[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=medium]3:6 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Go, and make disciples of all the nations[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]in My Name[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." And He joined the effect to His Word;[/SIZE]
- [SIZE=medium]3:7 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: "[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]." "But how," the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, ...But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph "[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]In MY NAME[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]." [/SIZE]
- [SIZE=medium]3:7 For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]make disciples of all nations[/SIZE][SIZE=medium], but with the necessary addition of "[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]In My Name[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]." And the power of [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]His Name[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] being so great, that the apostle says: "God has given [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]him a name[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] which is above every name, that in the [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]name of Jesus[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,"
[/SIZE] - [SIZE=medium]3:7 He shewed the virtue of the power in [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]His Name[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: "[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Go, and make disciples of all nations[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]in My Name[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]." He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: "For this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations."[/SIZE]
These words were said in a corner of the earth then, and only those present heard it. How, I ask, did they credit them, unless from other divine works that He had done they had experienced the truth in His words? [SIZE=medium]Not one of them disobeyed His command[/SIZE]: but in obedience to His Will according to their orders they began to make disciples of every race of men, going from their own country to all races, and in a short time it was possible to see His words realized.
Many modern day bibles will put in their footnotes scripture that is questionable, or was added later and not found in earlier manuscripts.
Example:
-Rev. 13:18
Says the # of the beast is 666, but the earliest of manuscripts from the 3rd century say it's 616.
-One of the most beloved story's in the gospels, The Women Caught In Adultry, scholars have known for more than a century that this is not an authentic story, this was so disturbing to many christians bible publishers just choose to keep it.
God chose to use imperfect men to put together holy scripture from the Hebrews through to the apostles. The bible is not dictated word to word but used inspired holy men to write His book. Many believe it was added in the 16th century by a scribe.
-The final 12 verses in Mark were added later, again maybe around 15th century, never found in the earliest of transcript. Those unfortunate souls who held poisonous snakes and died because of these verses.....
All the above should be noted in your newer bibles
God gave prophets and christians dreams, visions, visitations from angles and even christ Himself. The authors of the books we read in the bible wrote, putting it in their own words, their human personality being expressed, but because they were chosen by God their words, their writing are also influenced by the Holy Spirit, producing exactly what God wanted.
Example:
-Rev. 13:18
Says the # of the beast is 666, but the earliest of manuscripts from the 3rd century say it's 616.
-One of the most beloved story's in the gospels, The Women Caught In Adultry, scholars have known for more than a century that this is not an authentic story, this was so disturbing to many christians bible publishers just choose to keep it.
God chose to use imperfect men to put together holy scripture from the Hebrews through to the apostles. The bible is not dictated word to word but used inspired holy men to write His book. Many believe it was added in the 16th century by a scribe.
-The final 12 verses in Mark were added later, again maybe around 15th century, never found in the earliest of transcript. Those unfortunate souls who held poisonous snakes and died because of these verses.....
All the above should be noted in your newer bibles
God gave prophets and christians dreams, visions, visitations from angles and even christ Himself. The authors of the books we read in the bible wrote, putting it in their own words, their human personality being expressed, but because they were chosen by God their words, their writing are also influenced by the Holy Spirit, producing exactly what God wanted.
Wormwood
Chaps
FlamingZ,
You still have provided nothing regarding the questions I asked you. I assume that is because you have no evidence for your position.
Ruth,
I agree that the story of the woman caught in adultery is likely not original to John. However, it is found much earlier than the 16th century. In fact, it is referred to by Euthymius Zigabenus, a church father, in the 12th century. I am not certain of the date of the earliest gospel it is found in as I don't have that book with me. However, I am quite certain it is prior to the 16th century. It is still likely that the story is true, however. Many of the early stories of Jesus were kept in oral traditions as many people were not literate. It is possible that this was part of the oral tradition of Jesus and a scribe decided to write it in the margins of a text to preserve the oral tradition.
Also, while the long ending of Mark is also likely not original. We do have earlier texts that possess it much earlier than the 15th century. Also, Irenaeus and Diatesseron seem to be familiar with the long ending of Mark in their writings. It may have existed in a different early Christian document that at one point was added to Mark's ending. Either way, I do not think the point of these texts is to tempt Christians to handle poisonous snakes, etc. Many Christians were killed by such means of persecution and there seems to have been stories or instances where God protected some potential martyrs from those who would try to kill them for their faith through such means. That seems to be the point of the text...that God would provide signs on occasion to the unbeliever by protecting his people.
Anyway, your point is correct. There is no evidence from early texts that Matthew 28:19 is "spurious." None. This is a theologically driven agenda by FlamingZ and his ilk that cannot be substantiated in any way by early texts or the writings of early church fathers. He/she is out to lunch on this one.
You still have provided nothing regarding the questions I asked you. I assume that is because you have no evidence for your position.
Ruth,
I agree that the story of the woman caught in adultery is likely not original to John. However, it is found much earlier than the 16th century. In fact, it is referred to by Euthymius Zigabenus, a church father, in the 12th century. I am not certain of the date of the earliest gospel it is found in as I don't have that book with me. However, I am quite certain it is prior to the 16th century. It is still likely that the story is true, however. Many of the early stories of Jesus were kept in oral traditions as many people were not literate. It is possible that this was part of the oral tradition of Jesus and a scribe decided to write it in the margins of a text to preserve the oral tradition.
Also, while the long ending of Mark is also likely not original. We do have earlier texts that possess it much earlier than the 15th century. Also, Irenaeus and Diatesseron seem to be familiar with the long ending of Mark in their writings. It may have existed in a different early Christian document that at one point was added to Mark's ending. Either way, I do not think the point of these texts is to tempt Christians to handle poisonous snakes, etc. Many Christians were killed by such means of persecution and there seems to have been stories or instances where God protected some potential martyrs from those who would try to kill them for their faith through such means. That seems to be the point of the text...that God would provide signs on occasion to the unbeliever by protecting his people.
Anyway, your point is correct. There is no evidence from early texts that Matthew 28:19 is "spurious." None. This is a theologically driven agenda by FlamingZ and his ilk that cannot be substantiated in any way by early texts or the writings of early church fathers. He/she is out to lunch on this one.
Hi flamingzword,
you have had many insightful replies.
Even if the verse your referring to was not in the earliest scriptures it changes nothing about the Truth of God. I pointed reasons we can still trust that the bible was put together by God who chose to use flawed men. God loves His children and He wants us to be part of His story,..
Who ever added to the writing of the gospel did not mean harm but good, for God is three persons in one.
What would you like to share on the matter now that you have received these replies.
you have had many insightful replies.
Even if the verse your referring to was not in the earliest scriptures it changes nothing about the Truth of God. I pointed reasons we can still trust that the bible was put together by God who chose to use flawed men. God loves His children and He wants us to be part of His story,..
Who ever added to the writing of the gospel did not mean harm but good, for God is three persons in one.
What would you like to share on the matter now that you have received these replies.
Wormwood
Chaps
FlamingZ,
In absence of a meaningful response, I am left with no option but to assume as to why you are providing no information. I would be happy to be corrected if you would be so inclined as to provide some information about your sources and evidence for an early Hebrew Gospel that had a different rendering of Matthew 28:19.
In absence of a meaningful response, I am left with no option but to assume as to why you are providing no information. I would be happy to be corrected if you would be so inclined as to provide some information about your sources and evidence for an early Hebrew Gospel that had a different rendering of Matthew 28:19.
I have in my possession the Shem-Tob A Hebrew gospel of Matthew, which indeed has a different rendering of Matthew 28:19Wormwood said:
If you think I am lying, you can buy your own copy at Amazon .
Wormwood
Chaps
I never said you did not have a Hebrew version of Matthew. What I said was, there is no evidence that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew or that there are early versions of the Gospel that existed in Hebrew. Certainly, there is NO evidence that a Hebrew version of Matthew's Gospel predates or is more accurate than the Greek versions we possess. The Shem-Tob, based on my reading, is based on a debate with Catholics by Shem-Tob in the 1300's. Apparently, it is hard to determine where Shem-Tob is actually quoting the Gospel or where he is making his own comments...which makes any rendering of Matthew's Gospel "spurious" based on such a document. Other Hebrew Gospels of Matthew exist...such as the Munster Matthew and Jean du Tillet's Matthew, which do not agree with Shem-Tob's version of Matthew 28:19.
In sum, your document is based on a debate in the 1300's and has absolutely no value for textual criticism and determining what Matthew originally wrote. Other Hebrew versions of Matthew do not agree with Shem-Tob with regards to Matthew 28:19.
In sum, your document is based on a debate in the 1300's and has absolutely no value for textual criticism and determining what Matthew originally wrote. Other Hebrew versions of Matthew do not agree with Shem-Tob with regards to Matthew 28:19.
The Jean du Tillet's Matthew can not be accepted as valid for he confesses to making changes to this gospel in order to bring it in line with the current Matthean TextWormwood said:
Seventeen early writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.Wormwood said:
so these guys were just lying?
Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”
Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”
Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned shall rest.”
Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”
Epiphanius 370 AD “They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.”
Jerome 382 AD “Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists 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. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist…. makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew.”
Hegesippus, Hippolytus, Ephrem the Syrian, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Cyrrhus, Mario Mercator, Annarikhus, Didymus (the blind), Philip Sidetes, Pantaenus and many others also mention this Hebrew Gospel. The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009) by New Testament scholar James R. Edwards.
www.one-lord.org
