Hegel and the Myth of the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Dialectical Scheme

I found myself in a discussion on Twitter about a common "citation" attributed to the philosopher, Hegel, that goes:

Truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two.

Innumerable sites on the net attribute this to Hegel but not a single one can give an original source citation for the quote so I can look it up for myself in his published works or letters. I myself own the complete works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and have never once come across Hegel saying anything of the sort.

I fully agree with Frederick Beiser, one of the major Hegel scholars of our time, when he writes:

Although it is possible to talk about a dialectic, it is advisable to avoid the most popular way of explaining it: in terms of the schema 'thesis-antithesis-synthesis'. Hegel himself never used this terminology, and he criticized the use of all schemata. In the Phenomenology Hegel did praise 'the triadic form' that had been rediscovered by Kant, describing it even as 'the concept of science' (PG 41/¶50); but this is a reference to the triadic form of Kant's table of categories, not a method of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Although Kant's antinomies were the inspiration for Hegel's dialectic, Hegel never used Kant's method of exposition of thesis and antithesis. It has been said that this method was used by Fichte and Schelling, and then by extension wrongly attributed to Hegel; but it corresponds to nothing in Fichte or Schelling, let alone Hegel. 

Frederick Beiser: Hegel (Published by Routledge)

As a complete beginner a good twenty years ago, I originally read Hegel in this manner, but the more I read Hegel, the more I felt that this simple thesis-antithesis-synthesis formula misrepresented him. Well before Beiser published any book on Hegel, I had come to the same conclusion as he had and found myself fully nodding in agreement with him.

Unfortunately, in the current iteration of the Wikipedia entry on Hegel this extremely reductionistic thesis-antithesis-synthesis line is pushed extremely hard according to a dogmatic Marxist interpretation of Hegel. Previous versions of the Wiki entry on Hegel were not this bad, so there are obviously "editing wars" going on there. However, as Beiser says, you never actually find Hegel using the terms thesis-antithesis-synthesis—not even once. I searched through an eBook edition of the full text of the Phenomenology in German and I could find nothing of much note searching for the terms: thesis, antithesis, synthesis, these, antithese, synthese (entering "synthes" also brings up "synthesieren", "synthesiert" etc). The only exception was this:

Der Herr ist das für sich seiende Bewußtsein, aber nicht mehr nur der Begriff desselben, sondern für sich seiendes Bewußtsein, welches durch ein anderes Bewußtsein mit sich vermittelt ist, nämlich durch ein solches, zu dessen Wesen es gehört, daß es mit selbstständigem Sein oder der Dingheit überhaupt synthesiert ist. Phänomenologie: Kapitel 22. 

The Master is consciousness as being-for-itself, but not merely the concept of it, but for consciousness as being-for-itself, which is mediated by another consciousness, namely by such, to whose essence it belongs, such that it is synthesised from self-subsistent Being or from substantiality in general. Chapter 22 (my own translation)

As you can see, the wording contains nothing in it about the supposed dialectical movement of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. 

I do not wish to sound too dismissive of Marx, but even post-Marxists who knew their Hegel well, such as Theodor Adorno, never talk about this thesis-antithesis-synthesis formula. I have no idea why a complex and rich thinker such as Hegel has to be reduced down to such a mindless simplistic dogma for mass consumption.

As a result, unless the source citation for the statement "truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two" can be found and Hegel's original German version of this quote located in his writings, I am inclined to conclude that this quotation is a misattribution.