Not wanting to discuss a textual issue, but just a little background prior to my query about Logos translations:
I have been having a discussion w. someone very learned who suspects that Matthew 28.19 is not original. I realize that this is an old canard and I have already sent him many early writers who refer to this text (Martyr, Ignatius, etc.). He says that if I could locate a reading, say, in the 200’s, contains the reading that he would concede. I have already quoted to him the Sahidic translation, which is among the earliest translations of the Greek text.
Enter Logos: I am just wanting to know what is the earliest translation available in Logos? Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic? If at all possible I would greatly appreciate a link in Logos (or otherwise, e.g., Amazon).
He really is a fine, humble and sincere Christian man—who is also very scholarly (he was a Bible college president for 20 years). I have zero doubt that this reading is original—just thinking that the early translations might actually be a good route to take w. this gentleman.
Thank you in advance.
Note: If this thread is in anyway a violation of forum policies, please feel free to delete this thread👍.
https://apostolicacademics.com/
I suspect you are simply going to kick the can to the age of the manuscript e.g. the Syriac Peshitta. Your best answer would be to require him to show a reference without it that is first or second century. Beyond the Aramaic and Latin, the earliest translations are probably Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Slavonic, et. al. and they are well outside your time frame. I know the Old Latin (pre-Vulgate) is not in Logos but is available online. The Gothic is nearing release in Logos. Old Church Slavonic is likely available online.
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
MJ. Smith:I suspect you are simply going to kick the can to the age of the manuscript e.g. the Syriac Peshitta. Your best answer would be to require him to show a reference without it that is first or second century. Beyond the Aramaic and Latin, the earliest translations are probably Armenian, Georgian, et. al. and they are well outside your time frame.
He sent me a word-doc.-paper that he wrote journaling his suspicions so I will check that to see how far back he’s reaching.
I will also check into these translations you referenced above. Of course, advocates of this position appeal to Eusebius & Conybeare—which has long ago been debunked by both liberal and conservative scholars. I wrote Wallace about this and he agreed.
MJ. Smith: I suspect you are simply going to kick the can to the age of the manuscript e.g. the Syriac Peshitta. Your best answer would be to require him to show a reference without it that is first or second century. Beyond the Aramaic and Latin, the earliest translations are probably Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Slavonic, et. al. and they are well outside your time frame. I know the Old Latin (pre-Vulgate) is not in Logos but is available online. The Gothic is nearing release in Logos. Old Church Slavonic is likely available online.
Ahhh—forgot about Slavonic & OL. Gothic seems interesting—will look for this on Logos.
Update: Logos has released their Gothic resources - only the Gospel of Mark; online I see that the fragments of Matthew do not include the chapter under discussion http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/
I should have headed to bed an hour ago but use http://www.vetuslatina.org/manuscripts for the Old Latin research and see what the New Testament Manuscript explorer might have for early textual fragments ...
MJ. Smith: I should have headed to bed an hour ago but use http://www.vetuslatina.org/manuscripts for the Old Latin research and see what the New Testament Manuscript explorer might have for early textual fragments ...
😊—Same here regarding bedtime 😏. Textual criticism is the *LAST* topic I need to delve into when trying to wind down.
Thanks for the link. Going to check Ignatius also, but he states that the ECF writings are so full of interpolations that it’s often difficult to ascertain originality. I responded by pointing out that, while this is often true, if this logic is followed out to its natural end, then why accept *ANY* ancient writings as authentic?
Signing off for the night. Will check back in tomorrow night. Much appreciated 👍.
FYI Unfortunately in the Old Syrian Gospels the last verses of the gospel of Matthew are lacking.
https://www.logos.com/product/1799/old-syrian-gospels-codex-curetonianus
https://www.logos.com/product/1800/old-syrian-gospels-codex-sinaiticus
HJ. van der Wal:FYI Unfortunately in the Old Syrian Gospels the last verses of the gospel of Matthew are lacking.
It was a hot day in Damascus, plus they ran out of ink. Users were screaming to meet the ship date, what to do? Add it during the next update, of course.
I really like the Old Syrian.
Denise: Users were screaming to meet the ship date, what to do? Add it during the next update, of course.
Users were screaming to meet the ship date, what to do? Add it during the next update, of course.
Denise:Users were screaming to meet the ship date, what to do?
Enable-and-Submit-Log-Files | Install
Puddin’:Ahhh—forgot about Slavonic & OL. Gothic seems interesting—will look for this on Logos.
You might also approach it by verifying his own support.WARNING: REMEMBER THAT IDENTIFYING BAD SUPPORT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE POSITION IS WRONG - ONLY THAT THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS MISUSED. For example from A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 a randomly chosen site I know nothing about:
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
What Ratzinger actually said in a slightly larger context:
The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Revised Edition), trans. J. R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 82–83.
The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Revised Edition), trans. J. R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 82–83.
Ratzinger was clearly speaking of the Apostles' Creed in the excerpt on the web page not Matthew 28:19. Such dishonest use of a reference makes me respond like Bill the Cat.