Wormwood
Chaps
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.
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.