What! Everything can be settled here. :) Yes, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Your rejection of quotes from ANF on basis of the date of the oldest extant copy without showing that they are disputed in any other way is disturbing to me and runs counter to what I have learned of textural criticism.
Many scholars I've studied do consider the text now used for bible translation to be reliable. Another area we will have to agree to disagree upon.
The absence of that passage in older extant copies is not suprising - Mt 28 is the last chapter and would be found on the last page(s) of codex and subject to being lost the easiest,from normal wear and tear, so there is no need for a sinister excuse for the absence.
While you may consider the statement uncharacteristic of the Jewish Jesus (and we have learned a great deal about Jesus' sayings by studying the cultural context in greater detail in recent years) - consider that this was the post-resurrected Jesus, no longer constrained by cultural norms launching the disciples forward as part of the New Covenant.
Fair enough.
Your rejection of quotes from ANF on basis of the date of the oldest extant copy without showing that they are disputed in any other way is disturbing to me and runs counter to what I have learned of textural criticism
Textual criticism is not the panacea of all biblical controversies. It is a system that has its merits. It is a tool. What one does with it is a different story.
There is enough evidence (again, we will not settle it here because there is probably not enough bandwidth) to suggest that variant versions existed and that variant versions did not agree with the "official truth." Also there are distinct pattern, that seem to follow the development of official doctrine, etc. There is plenty of material to raise doubt. But doubt can be dismissed if someone wants to believe otherwise.
Many scholars I've studied do consider the text now used for bible translation to be reliable
So what? Many scholars agreed that the earth must be at the center of the universe and that everything rotated around us. They even had mathematical "proof" (Ptolemaic navigational system). Well, they were dead wrong! Logic and objectivity prevailed over wishes and mysticism.
The absence of that passage in older extant copies is not suprising - Mt 28 is the last chapter and would be found on the last page(s) of codex and subject to being lost the easiest,from normal wear and tear, so there is no need for a sinister excuse for the absence
Plausible hypothesis, but far from an established fact. Certainly not enough to allow us to close the inquiry and call the issue "solved."
While you may consider the statement uncharacteristic of the Jewish Jesus...consider that this was the post-resurrected Jesus, no longer constrained by cultural norms launching the disciples forward as part of the New Covenant.
The post-resurrected Jesus did not teach the disciples anything new in the days between the Crucifixion and the Pentecost. Matthew 28:19 still stands out as uncharacteristic of anything Jesus taught. besides, Mark's version differs significantly from Matthew's. It certainly has no Trinitarian anything in it.