Matthew 28:19 is spurious

[Wormwood]

First, you need to understand that this tradition is very questionable. We actually do not have surviving work in Papias. Rather, we have some questionable sources that supposedly quote him...mostly Eusebius. So its hard to know exactly what Papias said. Likely, Irenaeus, Origin and the others are regurgitating the same story that probably originated with Papias. The idea probably was more like what Irenaeus was saying...not that Matthew wrote exclusively in Hebrew, but that there may have been a copy made for the Hebrews, also.

Second, there have been many things recorded by the early church fathers that are not likely to be true. Just because one guy claimed something was true and others repeated the idea, does not mean it is true. These were not inspired authors. They were capable of being wrong. Indeed, often they were wrong.

Third, and most importantly, even if Matthew did write a copy in Hebrew, this does NOT nullify the fact that he wrote a copy in Greek (which is widely attested to both historically and through textual criticism). Moreover, it does not, in any wild stretch of the imagination, prove that Matthew 28:19 is "spurious." There is zero evidence for this. Your Hebrew copy (which in no way can be proved to be linked to Matthew's Hebrew copy (if one even existed)) is 1300 years removed from Matthew's original Gospel! Clearly, your claim that Matthew 28:19 is in error in the earliest manuscripts is completely a theological issue you have. There is no textual support behind you to suggest that this is not what Matthew wrote. You claim he wrote in Hebrew so you can dismiss Matthew 28:19. The facts are that there is no textual proof that he wrote in Hebrew, and even if he did, there is no textual proof that the early Hebrew version differs from the very early Greek texts that we possess. Clearly this is all about your beef with Trinitarian theology. There is no evidence to support the OP of this thread.

 

[FlamingZword]

The Gospel of Matthew itself is the biggest evidence that it originally was a Hebrew Text.
There are a great number of Hebrew words left untranslated in the Gospel of Matthew.
Hebrew word puns are in many parts included, these word puns would make no sense if the original writing had been in Greek
It is obvious to any professional translator that Matthew is a translation of a Hebrew work.

 

[Wormwood]

FlamingZ,

What? How can you say Hebrew words are left untranslated? We don't have an early Hebrew text! How can you say there are Hebrew word puns when we only have Greek texts to go off of (unless you are still using your text from the 1300s as a means of determining what should or should not be in Greek texts that date back to the 2nd century).

Are you a professional translator? Can you share your credentials that make you such an authority on this matter? Please show me one well-known Greek scholar (perhaps someone who teaches at a known theological institution) who would confirm this claim. If this is so "obvious" then why do I have dozens of books by translators and textual critics and not ONE of them say that the text must have been originally written in Hebrew because of the way it is written in Greek?

Finally, its ridiculous to think that someone can read a Greek document and conclude that it must have been translated from Hebrew because of the way the Greek reads. That would be like me reading a well-written letter in English and saying, "Hmm, this must have been translated from Spanish." Its nonsensical. No one can read a document and determine it had been translated, let alone translated from a specific language! The early Greek texts of Matthew are not choppy in the least. It is very fluid and well put together.

Clearly, you have assumed your Hebrew text which is one thousand and three hundred years removed from Matthew's writing is more accurate than Greek texts that date less than 100 years of Matthew. Based on this wild assumption, you are determining what Matthew meant and how it should read. You have determined your conclusion quite separately from the facts, and then using that conclusion to determine what the facts are. This is circular reasoning to the extreme.

 

[FlamingZword]

Yes I am a professional translator
I have an L= linguistic designation from the military and I have translated many documents for the military and the civilian sector.

Yes I can clearly tell when a document is a translation.

you obviously have not studied the textual debates about Matthew to understand what any good scholar knows, Matthew makes poor Greek but excellent Hebrew.

 

[Wormwood]

I assure you I HAVE studied what scholars know. I will share some of their publications for you to confirm that fact. While it is clear that Matthew uses Hebrew idioms in his Gospel, this in no way verifies the idea that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew. He was a Hebrew, and it is not surprising he would think like a Hebrew. However, most Hebrews in the first century spoke and wrote predominately in Koine Greek. This is the reason the Septuagint was translated. Moreover, Matthew does not quote the Hebrew text in his Gospel. Rather his quotations follow a version that is more similar to that of the Greek Septuagint. I know of no Greek scholar or translator who has ever claimed that they could tell that the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew based on the reading of the earliest Greek versions. None. I am also very familiar with scholar discussions on textual criticism, and no scholar I have read is confident that there was an early version of Matthew, especially one with an alternate version of 28:19. There just simply isn't any proof other than a few quotes from a handful of early church fathers that often confused canonical books with non-canonical ones..attributing them to the wrong source or language.


Again, I invite you to share with me some known scholarly sources that point to early Hebrew texts of Matthew, namely, those that omit the common rendering of Matthew 28:19. Here are what sources I have actually say about the notion of an early Hebrew version of Matthew as well as our actual access to any such version:

[SIZE=medium]The early Church believed that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language. The earliest to report this tradition is Papias (ca. 60–130 C.E.; Eusebius HE 3.39.16) A host of later writers confirm the tradition, including Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. These writers, however, sometimes confuse the Hebrew Matthew with the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazoreans, and/or the Gospel according to the Hebrews, apocryphal Jewish Christian gospels written in the 2nd century. The early Christian witness to the text of the Hebrew Matthew is, consequently, unclear.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]George Howard, “Matthew, Hebrew Gospel Of,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 873–874.[/SIZE]

Concerning Shem-Tobit:

[SIZE=medium]Since Howard’s initial publication (1987) and later revision (1995), there has been little scholarly support for his beliefs. While many have commended his restoration and translation of Shem-Tobit’s Hebrew Matthew—some even considering it a ground-breaking development in Hebrew Gospel studies (Shedinger, “Further Consideration,” 686–94)—there has been reluctance to share his conclusions without first studying Shem-Tobit’s commentary. Howard has been accused of forming premature judgments without considering other possible options. Responses include:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] • Horbury believes Shem-Tobit’s similarities to Old Syriac and Latin translations may be better explained by the continuing popularity of those texts in the medieval period (Horbury, “Hebrew Matthew,” 129). He believes pro-Jewish writers assimilated the various texts and languages they encountered into their works, which Shem-Tobit would likely have read.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] • Petersen believes Shem-Tobit’s text is best explained as a Hebrew translation of the Medieval Latin Vorlage (Petersen, “Vorlage,” 490–512). He demonstrates how the Liège Harmony, a Middle Dutch translation of the Latin Vorlage which harmonizes the Gospels into one account, explains many of the textual similarities between Shem-Tobit’s text and the various minority witnesses. In this sense, Shem-Tobit was less likely influenced by a primitive Hebrew Gospel than a medieval harmonized Gospel.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] • Edwards favors a Hebrew Gospel but does not consider Shem-Tobit’s text to be representative of it (Edwards, Hebrew Gospel, 193).[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Chris McKnight, “Hebrew Version of Matthew,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).[/SIZE]

Here is what scholars predominately think regarding Papias' claim that Matthew wrote a version in Hebrew.

[SIZE=medium]Scholars’ opinions toward these early statements [regarding Papias' claim Matthew wrote a version in Hebrew] vary, with some suggesting alternative origins for the Gospel of Matthew. Views include:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] • Matthew wrote a separate Hebrew or Aramaic document on the sayings or teachings of Jesus (see Nolland, Hagner, Powers)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] • It was written in a Semitic style (see Luz, Turner).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] • The early church fathers were mistaken, possibly confused by Ebionite or Nazaraean Gospels in Hebrew (see France, Keener; Hagner, New Testament, 193–196).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] • There is not enough evidence to support a definitive conclusion (see Wilkins, Osborne).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Eusebius’ quote of Papias is notoriously difficult to translate. Difficulties include (France, Matthew, 56–57):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] • The word for “collected” (συνετάξετο, synetaxeto) could be rendered “composed,” “compiled,” or “arranged.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] • The term for “oracles” (λόγια, logia) could refer to the sayings of Jesus or the entirety of the Old Testament.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] • The phrase “Hebrew dialect” (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, Hebraidi dialektō) may refer to the writing style instead of the language of origin.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] • The term “interpreted” (ἡρμήνευσεν, hērmēneusen) could be construed as “translated,” “transmitted,” “communicated,” or “explained.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Because of such ambiguity, the modern scholarly consensus has been mostly to deny the possibility of an early Semitic version of Matthew.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Chris McKnight, “Hebrew Version of Matthew,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2013, 2014).[/SIZE]

In conclusion, all we know of the rumored Hebrew version of Matthew is that it is a rumor, and some scholars think its a possibility one existed, but we have no access to it currently. While the Shem-Tob might point to an earlier Hebrew version, there is no evidence of any Hebrew version that predates approximately 500AD. So, not only do we not know if the Shem-Tob is actually a copy or translation, we do not know if it has any connection to an early Hebrew version that dates around the time of Matthew...if there even is one!

We have hundreds of early Greek documents of Matthew and many date to a time very close to Matthew's original writing. NONE of these versions are in dispute about Matthew 28:19. NONE! The evidence is overwhelming. You are basing your view on a rumor that Matthew might have written a Hebrew version, and that the Shem-Tob, which is 1300 years removed from Matthew is somehow connected to the true Gospel of Matthew (in spite of no early Hebrew versions)...and that true Gospel is different than the hundreds of early copies that are all in agreement about Matthew 28:19.

If you want to believe that, go ahead. However, claim that Matthew 28:19 is "spurious" is not based on any true evidence. The only thing that is "spurious" is the idea that a Hebrew version of Matthew from the 1300's is more accurate than all the very early Greek copies of Matthew's Gospel that are all in agreement with each other regarding Matthew 28:19.

 

[FlamingZword]

The Gospel of Matthew is full of Hebrew/Aramaic alliterations, puns and word connections. That is a strong indication that it was originally written in that language. Theodor Zahn a German biblical scholar of such reputation that even the great Harnack feared him, argued for the existence of such Gospel. The Making of the New Testament Documents (1999) by Edward Earle Ellis, Biblical scholar. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament: Das Evangelium de Matthäus (1903) Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew by Dr. Theodor Zhan.

 

[Wormwood]

FlamingZ,

As I posted above, I do not discount the fact that some scholars believe that Matthew could have written a Hebrew version of his Gospel. My point has been, and remains, that no such evidence exists for it. Thus, your claim that there was an original version in Hebrew and that version has a different rendering of Matthew 28:19 has zero credible textual evidence.

 

[FlamingZword]

[SIZE=small]The Shem-Tob’s the Gospel of Matthew[/SIZE] (1385) preserved in Hebrew; this is definitive proof that not all texts contained the Trinitarian jargon.
[SIZE=small]This Gospel has readings in agreement with: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]The Coptic Gospel of Thomas (1st or 2nd century; MS dates to the 4th century)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]The Old Syriac version (2nd century; MSS date to the 4th and 5th centuries)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]The Protoevangelium of James (2nd /3rd century)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]The Pseudo-Clementine writings (3rd/4th century)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]The Codex Sinaiticus (4th century)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]One of the strongest proof of the authenticity of the Shem-Tob is the 44 readings in Shem-Tob's text which are found in no other Matthean witnesses. These 44 readings are not the only independent readings in Shem-Tob's text, for it contains a number of other independent readings at places where there is otherwise no variation in the Matthean textual tradition.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]It suggest that GM-Sh-Tb’s dates “somewhere within the first four centuries of the Christian era.”—George Howard, “Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish Christianity,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament[/SIZE], 70, June 1998, p. 19 [3-20]) To these readings we can reckoned also the unique reading “Go ye” at Matthew 28:19.

[SIZE=small]On this subject, Professor George Howard write that “it may be said that the Hebrew Matthew preserved in Shem-Tob’s Even Bohan supports the short Eusebian ending to Matthew by omitting the trinitarian baptismal formula.”—“A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew,” Harvard Theological Review, 81:1, 1988, p. 120 [117-120]) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]In "Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew" which uses Hebrew texts pre-dating the Greek texts which we have [These Hebrew manuscripts are of the Ante-Nicene era (pre-dating the First Council of Nicaea-325A.D.). Matthew's Gospel was written for the Jew and would most likely have been written in Hebrew. Hebrew scribes were much more meticulous -- careful not to use extraneous material -- in their transcription of manuscripts than were Greek scribes - so these Hebrew manuscripts are likely to be more reliable then the Greek manuscripts]. Dr. James D. Tabor, professor of Christian origins and ancient Judaism, A Hebrew Gospel of Matthew[/SIZE].

[SIZE=small]Daniel J. Harrington, a foremost Catholic Church historian, suggest that “commentators on the canonical Matthew would be well advised to consult Shem-Tob’s Hebrew text.”—“Review of G. Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 50, 1988, pp. 717, 718). And Biblical scholar Robert F. Shedinger (“A Further Consideration of the Textual Nature of Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 61:4, October 1999, pp. 686-694) observe: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]We can say with some confidence that while there is still much to learn about Shem-Tob’s fascinating Hebrew Matthew, the text does stand as an important witness in the textual development of the Matthean Gospel. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]In the ancient texts there are many other mentions of a Hebrew gospel, which probably are references to the original Gospel of Matthew which was written in Hebrew. Isn’t it strange that the only Gospel without the traditional text in Matthew 28:19 is an actual Hebrew text which was hidden away inside the Jewish community? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]Unfortunately for the Trinitarians and despite their best efforts to destroy all the alternative texts the cat is out of the bag and they are not longer able to destroy this Hebrew text like they most assuredly did with all the others. So the Trinitarians now have resorted to attack fiercely the authenticity of this survivor precisely on the grounds that it does not have the Trinitarian text in Matthew 28:19. Talk about chutzpah. In other words they argue in a circular manner that if this was an authentic Gospel then it would have the traditional text of Matthew 28:19.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]George Howard the translator writes “It underwent a different process of transmission than the Greek, since it was preserved by the Jews, and thus independent from the Catholic Community” Howard also says “The Hebrew Book of Matthew is free from Roman Catholic bias, slants, and Trinitarian interpolations.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]Dr. Marvin Arnold in The Bible, Trinity, and Matthew 28:19[/SIZE] (2002) p. 234 said of the Shem-Tob “It was independent of Roman Catholic source. He received it solely from previous Jewish scribes. From that premise we may freely receive it as pure text and authentic.” He also writes, ‘The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew does not have the Catholic fabricated titles and phrases: "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."’

The strongest proof for the authenticity of the the Shem-Tob is the Hebrew language in the text itself.
It would genius beyond description to translate a Greek text back into Hebrew and have as a result all the Hebraisms that exits in the Shem-Tob; for the words used in it quite readily conform to hebraistic grammar.
There are word puns in this Hebrew text that are lost on a Greek audience. In Matthew 7:6 the Shem-Tob text reads: "Do not place your pearls before swine lest they chew them before you and turn to rend you."
The word used for "swine" is "hazir" and for "turn," "yahzeru." Both come from the Hebrew root h-z-r. In Matthew 10:36 the Shem-Tob text reads: "The enemies will be loved ones."
The word for "enemies" is "haoyevim;" for "loved ones," "ahuvim." Then you have the following play on words. Matthew 5:9-10,
"Blessed are those who pursue peace for they shall be called the sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.",
"To pursue" is "radaph" in Hebrew; "to persecute" is the same word. Matthew 8:28,31 "There met him two demon-possessed men…Then the demons entreated him.",
"Met" is "paga" in Hebrew; "entreated" is the same word. These and many more such play on words tells us that the Hebrew in the Shem-Tob is closer to the original writings.
It is simply ridiculous to say that the Shem-Tob is a translation of a Greek text.
www.one-lord.org

 

[Wormwood]

[SIZE=small]One of the strongest proof of the authenticity of the Shem-Tob is the 44 readings in Shem-Tob's text which are found in no other Matthean witnesses. These 44 readings are not the only independent readings in Shem-Tob's text, for it contains a number of other independent readings at places where there is otherwise no variation in the Matthean textual tradition.[/SIZE]

An added reading does not, by any stretch of the imagination, indicate something is authentic! I mean, the whole story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in any of the earliest witnesses, and was clearly added at a later date. Added readings are usually proof that the writing is later...as many later writings added or embellished on formerly known content. The Gnostic gospels are notorious for this. None of them date back to the life of Jesus. Not even close.

[SIZE=small]On this subject, Professor George Howard write that “it may be said that the Hebrew Matthew preserved in Shem-Tob’s Even Bohan supports the short Eusebian ending to Matthew by omitting the trinitarian baptismal formula.”—“A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew,” Harvard Theological Review, 81:1, 1988, p. 120 [117-120]) [/SIZE]

Yes, this quote says that the Shem-Tob is found in the catergory of the short ending of Matthew. It doesn't say that this author thinks the short ending is the accurate one, nor that the Trinitarian formula should be omitted from Matthew's Gospel. I don't have time now, but I will look at the context of these quotes from the more reputable authors and see what their argument really is about the reliability of an ending without the Trinitarian formula. I have a feeling I know the answer as NO reputable scholar I have ever read has argued that the Trinitarian formula should be omitted in Matthew based on textual evidence.

 

[Guestman]

This "discussion" has turned into a debate over a non-issue as to whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, which by the way Jerome acknowledges as true, saying that "Matthew.....first of all composed a Gospel in Judea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision (Jews) who had believed ....Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library in Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected."(De Illustrious Men)


But the issue is not about whether Matthew wrote his gospel account in Hebrew (possibly he later translated it into Greek), but what Jesus was saying at Matthew 28:19 and 20. Concerning debates, the apostle Paul told Timothy: "Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights."(2 Tim 2:23) So, true Christians avoid debates, knowing that they usually end up basically going nowhere.(see Paul's word at 1 Tim 2:8 that says: "I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer, lifting up loyal hands, without anger and debates.")


At Matthew 28:19, 20, Jesus told his eleven faithful apostles: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look ! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” This in no way teaches a trinitarian doctrine, but helps them recognize the role of the Father, Jehovah God, his only-begotten Son, Jesus, and what the holy spirit can accomplish as God's active force.


Hence, Jesus gave his loyal disciples a commission to "go....and make disciples of people of all the nations", then baptizing them "in the name (or by the authority) of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit". It is like saying to a criminal: "Stop in the name of the law" or by its authority.


This commission to make disciples of Jesus is something genuine Christians take very seriously. Jesus set the precedent, going to the homes of people in the territory of Israel. After selecting his apostles, he then tells them: "Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. When you enter the house, greet the household. If the house is deserving, let the peace you wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from you return upon you."(Matt 10:11-13)


The eleven faithful apostles did this most vital work that will be completed in the near future. Paul, an apostle, though not considered as among "the twelve", told the elders from Ephesus, that "I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house. But I thoroughly bore witness both to Jews and to Greeks about repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus."(Acts 20:20, 21)


This global disciple making work is moving on at a fast pace, whereby Jesus is poised to separate "the sheep from the goats".(Matt 25:32)

 

[FlamingZword]

This "discussion" has turned into a debate over a non-issue as to whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew, which by the way Jerome acknowledges as true, saying that "Matthew.....first of all composed a Gospel in Judea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision (Jews) who had believed ....Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library in Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected."(De Illustrious Men)

But the issue is not about whether Matthew wrote his gospel account in Hebrew (possibly he later translated it into Greek), but what Jesus was saying at Matthew 28:19 and 20. Concerning debates, the apostle Paul told Timothy: "Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights."(2 Tim 2:23) So, true Christians avoid debates, knowing that they usually end up basically going nowhere.(see Paul's word at 1 Tim 2:8 that says: "I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer, lifting up loyal hands, without anger and debates.")

At Matthew 28:19, 20, Jesus told his eleven faithful apostles: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look ! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” This in no way teaches a trinitarian doctrine, but helps them recognize the role of the Father, Jehovah God, his only-begotten Son, Jesus, and what the holy spirit can accomplish as God's active force.

Hence, Jesus gave his loyal disciples a commission to "go....and make disciples of people of all the nations", then baptizing them "in the name (or by the authority) of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit". It is like saying to a criminal: "Stop in the name of the law" or by its authority.

This commission to make disciples of Jesus is something genuine Christians take very seriously. Jesus set the precedent, going to the homes of people in the territory of Israel. After selecting his apostles, he then tells them: "Into whatever city or village you enter, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. When you enter the house, greet the household. If the house is deserving, let the peace you wish it come upon it; but if it is not deserving, let the peace from you return upon you."(Matt 10:11-13)

The eleven faithful apostles did this most vital work that will be completed in the near future. Paul, an apostle, though not considered as among "the twelve", told the elders from Ephesus, that "I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house. But I thoroughly bore witness both to Jews and to Greeks about repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus."(Acts 20:20, 21)

This global disciple making work is moving on at a fast pace, whereby Jesus is poised to separate "the sheep from the goats".(Matt 25:32)

Jesus already had said in the prior verse 28:17 that he had all authority, why would we then need to use the Authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
If Jesus has all authority, then what further need there be of him saying use another authority?

that is pure nonsense.
All authority is given unto me, go you therefore and use their authority?

 

[Forsakenone]

Jesus already had said in the prior verse 28:17 that he had all authority, why would we then need to use the Authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
If Jesus has all authority, then what further need there be of him saying use another authority?

that is pure nonsense.
All authority is given unto me, go you therefore and use their authority?

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matt 28:18
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt 28:19

Since the name of the Father is Hallowed [Luke 11:2], and the Spirit and the Word are one [1 John 5:7] wouldn't that make the name of the Holy Ghost hallowed also [Ps 118:26]?

What is the name of the Father? ____________________

What is the name of the Son? _______________________

What is the name of the Holy Ghost? __________________

The LORD knows I don't know about these three separate and distinct personages of the Trinity so it would seem they would have three separate and distinct names also, so what do you think the names are?

 

[StanJ]

IF, that particular scripture is improperly rendered, it would make sense given that there is no account of any apostle water baptizing in those 3 names, they only ever water baptized converts in JESUS' name.
As to what language Matthew was written in, Greek was the language of the day, even in Jerusalem. It's also what scribes wrote in and Matthew did not write his own book.

 

[OzSpen]

IF, that particular scripture is improperly rendered, it would make sense given that there is no account of any apostle water baptizing in those 3 names, they only ever water baptized converts in JESUS' name.
As to what language Matthew was written in, Greek was the language of the day, even in Jerusalem. It's also what scribes wrote in and Matthew did not write his own book.

Stan,

Irenaeus, writing about AD 180, stated:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

If you go back about 50 years prior to this, Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, 'Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could' (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:39]). Papias lived about AD 70-163. His life could have overlapped with that of John the Apostle.

So, there is evidence from after the time of the apostles that Matthew's Gospel could have been written in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect.

Oz

 

[FlamingZword]

Stan,

Irenaeus, writing about AD 180, stated:

If you go back about 50 years prior to this, Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, 'Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could' (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:39]). Papias lived about AD 70-163. His life could have overlapped with that of John the Apostle.

So, there is evidence from after the time of the apostles that Matthew's Gospel could have been written in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect.

Oz

The Dead Sea Scrolls are plenty of evidence, the majority of them were written in Hebrew, also plenty of them were also written in Aramaic, only a few texts were written in Greek. The Bar Kokhba letters, the inscription on the cross of Jesus and the account in Acts 22:2 are more evidence that Hebrew was still written and understood in Jerusalem. I almost forgot the writings of Josephus as more evidence that Hebrew was still used in Jerusalem around 70 AD

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

Irenaeus, writing about AD 180, stated:

If you go back about 50 years prior to this, Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, 'Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could' (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:39]). Papias lived about AD 70-163. His life could have overlapped with that of John the Apostle.
So, there is evidence from after the time of the apostles that Matthew's Gospel could have been written in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect.
Oz

Yes that would be the Q, but that is not what is used to render modern English Bibles.

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

 

[StanJ]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are plenty of evidence, the majority of them were written in Hebrew, also plenty of them were also written in Aramaic, only a few texts were written in Greek. The Bar Kokhba letters, the inscription on the cross of Jesus and the account in Acts 22:2 are more evidence that Hebrew was still written and understood in Jerusalem. I almost forgot the writings of Josephus as more evidence that Hebrew was still used in Jerusalem around 70 AD

The Dead Sea scrolls only represent the OT, not the NT. Only 15% of those texts are in Aramaic and not all are Biblical.

Here's a good site to get good info.
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/introduction

 

[OzSpen]

Yes that would be the Q, but that is not what is used to render modern English Bibles.

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

Yes that would be the Q, but that is not what is used to render modern English Bibles.

http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm

No, it's not referring to Q as that refers to what is common in Matt & Luke that was not in Mark.

Papias is referring to Matt's Gospel being written in the Aramaic language (a Hebrew dialect).

Oz

 

[StanJ]

No, it's not referring to Q as that refers to what is common in Matt & Luke that was not in Mark.

Papias is referring to Matt's Gospel being written in the Aramaic language (a Hebrew dialect).

Oz

No sorry my response did not refer to the link I posted...they were two separate comments.

 

[liafailrock]

LOL. When I checked out the one-lord website, it says it contains malware that automatically installs on your computer. I had to use another browser to get onto it. Seems to have a lot of articles and messages which I did not have time yet to look at, so I'm not judging the content. But anyone who has malware on it can't be altogether playing with a full deck. Then again, maybe there's something threatening that the site says that to scare people away they just flag it (you can't trust these days-- sort of like censorship). But the browser that flagged me was google chrome. I would think that of all the browsers and operating system, they have the least worries. I'd worry with IE.