So if you have any other verses with this depth of Ante-Nicene citation, please share away.
Perhaps John 10:30 ?
And what do you make of Conybeare's argument against its authenticity?
Actually, I think it is good to first digest the above, since most papers, including that of Conybeare,
do not give solid Ante-Nicene referencing information. Having the data sensibly displayed comes first
.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
James Snapp
The first issue of the Hibbert Journal, in which F. C. Conybeare ... ... and that the threefold formula in Mt. 28:19 is an early accretion, His final sentence: "It may confidently be predicted that when the Greek and Latin fathers who wrote before 400 have been more carefully edited than hitherto from the best codices, scores of old readings will be restored in the text of the N.T. of which no trace remains in any Greek MS."
Steven Avery
The two items contradict each other. Matthew 28:19 may well be the single most strongly-attested verse in the whole Bible, looking at the early church writings before 400 AD. And in addition this verse has close to 100% manuscript support.
So how much interest can we have in textual theoretician whose main redaction conflicts with his main theory ?