What would be the criteria for establishing what is and isn't scripture?

Good Morning. I must admit that I have read the book of Henoch - he refers to the God of the Spirits!! It is so beautiful - the Ancient of Days.
But that's not what I would like to contribute. The other day I was on a website - and I have lost it - it concerns the hebrew version of Matthew. A certain Dr. Pastor Reckart claims to be the "leading defender in the name of Jesus" and he avers that chapter 28:19 is ommitted in this hebrew version. That is where Yashua tells His disciples to baptise in the Name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. I punched in "matthew hebrew" on google and I got to this site. Otherwise one could also punch in "Matthew 28:19 hebrew".
I am unaware of such a "gospel". I questioned this guy as to how Yahshua"s name was translated because in the version which was shown on the internet, the english translation plainly states "Jesus". And I also wanted to know whether I was correct in my assumption that in this specific gospel the deity of Yashua was denied? according to another site. However I only received a rebuff and am non the wiser. Could any of you yahudis throw some more light on this?
By the way Ken, I thoroughly enjoy TOM!! I have just taken a short break to visit the forum.
Koos

I emailed the guy about the Mathew 28:19 to get some more details. His response is as follows:

I am merely presenting what George Howard has reported. But I beleive the Jews preserved this copy and it WAS NOT TRANSLATED but was rather a copy of the original Matthew in Hebrew.

As far as placeholders this is your opinion. It is an opinion spread by the Yahwist and the tetragrammaton worshipers. The Septuagint had no such placeholders. Any versions or copies in the Greek or Latin that used abreviations or the such does not mean the original autographs contained such.

I beleive the trinitarian statement in Matthew 28:19 is false and there are many trinitarian scholars who agree. The Hebrew Matthew that was in existence before Christian scholars questioned the text is a proof. Now if this version was "reverse-engineered" from the Greek, then the Greek did not have the trinitatian statement. So it gets you no where.

Jesus did not make the trinitarian statement and that settles it. The Apostles never quoted it in reference to water baptism and were Jesus only in the name they uttered. You cannot deal with that and you certainly did not respond to it.


I did a quick google search and found this response about whether the Septuagint had the divine name in there or not -> http://lists.ibiblio.org...98-September/002015.html
I haven't checked this in my new Logos software though, as I am still learning how to use a lot of it!

This may be arguing over small stuff, but I have to confess I'm still curious. I guess I'll have to get the book written by George Howard. Have any of you guys read it yet?