.
Waste of time to deal with a sarcastic popingjay who has zero interest in reality.
.
Waste of time to deal with a sarcastic popingjay who has zero interest in reality.
You claim you have a copy of Matthew in the original language that supports a claim that is not supported in the received Greek, but can’t be bothered to give chapter and verse to support the claim?
That I know and can easily consult Shem Tov ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that I am quite grounded in textual reality. I am acutely aware that the Fathers held (and indeed the Church teaches) that the Matthean original is not in Greek, but in his native language. As far as I am aware, no Christian after the fifth century presented any contact with this text in a tradition demonstrably independent of Shem Tov.
There may be evidence in Shem Tov pointing to your assertion. I have found a number of fascinating things in it that did not make it into the Greek. Giving chapter and verse for it is not that difficult, at least if you are following Howard’s critical edition.
The other two options are that you have access to some alternate manuscript tradition that I have missed during 20 + years of off and on research in this area, or that you mispoke and actually have nothing to substantiate your claim when pressed.
BTW—the upstate NY comments are an allusion to the ascribed discovery to the book of Mormon. They are modern gnostics. If there are a group of people running around with a hitherto unknown version of Matthew with no pedigree, I would put them into the same camp.