Matt 28:19

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jkimbo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jkimbo

Guest
There seems to be much controversy over the last part of Matt 28:19, in the King James version it is in italics, meaning it was NOT found in any original manuscripts we know of, and was added in by translators later on.

My question is this, when was it added on? By who? I ask because Matt 28:19 is in sharp contrast to Acts baptism instructions to simply baptize in the name of Jesus Christ.

While I personally do not find this to be a major issue for myself, I often do not know how to address this when it comes up.

Your thoughts?
 
Who told you that? No part of that verse is in italics in my KJV. And it’s solidly accounted for in all versions of the Greek text.
 
In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew

In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’

There is a lot more if your interested. I’m a historical and biblical research buff so this sort of stuff is right up my alley sort of speak 🙂

I personally do not find any doctrinal errors here, however there is significant evidence abound from early works to question if the last part of this verse after the word “Nations” was modified later on to fit the doctrine. Note I am not disputing the doctrine, only the method used.

When I am confronted with arguments against the supposed modified ending of Matt 28:19, I admit it could have been modified later by translators, HOWEVER I am quick to point out there is no doctrinal error there.

That will satisfy most but not all. What I was looking for here is if there is any stronger case that can be made to support it was NOT added later. The burden of proof is certainly on those who question it, but as I said, one could build a compelling case for that.
 
I’ve been messin’ with the Greek for 20 years or so, and this is the first I’ve ever heard of any “controversy.” I have both the Nestle-Aland Greek text and the Greek NT according to the Majority Text, and the only footnotes in that verse have to do with whether there is nun or oun after “going,” and alternate forms of “baptizing.” If there is “so much controversy,” how come the scholarly editions of the Greek text don’t mention it?
 
Just google it, plenty to find.

One explanation is Constantine wrote the ending, albeit I do not find this to be solid. There is enough out there and I am surprised this is the first you heard of it.

Again I can’t emphasize enough that I do not consider this to be a doctrinal error, but perhaps possible a translation error.

Unfortunately if not prepared for this refute it could give some the upper hand if not at least acquainted with this controversy which is pretty much only found with those either trying to argue in favor of Acts baptism over Matt, and those who may try to argue against the Trinity. The strongest merit I can find objectively is possibly a translation error that does not effect the doctrine of baptism or the Trinity.

The only other problem is that if you research early Tradition, it can still go either way.
I was hoping I missed some thing and was looking for some thing new I can add.
 
The Trinitarian formula was not added to Matthew 28:19 by Constantine in 325.***Ignatius, ca 110
**For those things which the prophets announced, saying, “Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles,” have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 9.2)

**Irenaeus, ca 170
**And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, chap 17.1)

**Tertullian, ca 200
**Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost. (Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, 20)The myth that the text was added seems to come from a contextless quote used by skeptics and others on the web. The quotation from one of a number of websites reads:“The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.”*However, what does the actual text say from his book? Here is the 2004 reprint of the book online for anyone to view.

His remarks come at the start of a chapter subtitled: Introductory Remarks on the History and Structure of the Apostles’ Creed. He is not giving a history on the text of Matthew 28:19.

Now here’s his actual quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:*It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”*The words in parentheses from the skeptics’ quote are not in Cardinal Ratzinger’s actual text. The “text” he’s referring to in the skeptic’s contextless quote is the text of the Creed, not the text of Matthew 28:19. And as you can see, Cardinal Ratzinger goes on to quote Matthew 28:19 a few verses later the same way Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian did.
 
The Baptism of Jesus is the Baptism of the Trinity, the Baptism of Jesus is not something that stands in contrast to the Baptism of the Trinity, it stands in contrast to the baptism of John the Baptist, whose Baptism was not instituted by Christ nor did it invoke the name of the Trinity. The Baptism instituted by Jesus/The Baptism of Jesus is to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The description of Baptisms in acts does not indicate that baptisms took place to the exclusion of invoking the Father and the Holy Spirit, they indicate by whose authority and power this is being done, and that by Jesus Christ who mediates the New Covenant and thus institutes Baptism as the initiation into that covenant whereby the entire trinity is invoked in Baptism by His command in Matthew’s gospel.
 
Thank you guys for your (name removed by moderator)ut! I appreciated you taking it seriously as I did!
 
Beware all, saying this may push an agenda. I have not heard where some of Matthew is missing, there is no link so I assume this is not so. Only people of a certain religion may assert this. I’m not saying this is not true, I am saying I have searched for this additionally and only saw hearsay myself that the end of Matthew 28 for example is missing. Sources please!! This is quite a claim to make that some of the earliest manuscripts of Matthew 28 are missing and then to say, “Just google it”. I don’t believe this is substantiated anywhere at all. This may be some sort of Pentecostalism that asserts this, perhaps Oneness because you can’t have a Baptism in more than one name for Oneness to make sense.

Beware too if someone should quote say as in this thread, Origen. Do all of Origen’s quotes attest to this? Some of the early writers and church fathers may have said both, I think Eusebius’ writings sometimes say both things, it is thought by some that at times, Eusebius may have “abbreviated” what he wrote.

One religion is out there that tries to assert we need only be Baptized in the Name of Jesus and say that is the Form largely from the Book of Acts thus, that religion tries to insinuate Matt. 28:19 has been altered. I do believe Catholic Answers has tackled this subject.
Jkimbo said:
In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew

In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’

There is a lot more if your interested. I’m a historical and biblical research buff so this sort of stuff is right up my alley sort of speak 🙂

I personally do not find any doctrinal errors here, however there is significant evidence abound from early works to question if the last part of this verse after the word “Nations” was modified later on to fit the doctrine. Note I am not disputing the doctrine, only the method used.

When I am confronted with arguments against the supposed modified ending of Matt 28:19, I admit it could have been modified later by translators, HOWEVER I am quick to point out there is no doctrinal error there.

That will satisfy most but not all. What I was looking for here is if there is any stronger case that can be made to support it was NOT added later. The burden of proof is certainly on those who question it, but as I said, one could build a compelling case for that.
Click to expand...
 
catholic.com/library/Trinitarian_Baptism.asp The Catholic Answers essay is over Trinitarian Baptism.

Now, it seems the original poster here referred to Origen: Note the CA essay:
Origen
“The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . . for indeed, legitimate baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity” (Commentary on Romans 5:8 [A.D. 248]).
Click to expand...
Note, Origen here refers to all 3, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t argue with what the original poster is saying per his rights to express his views, I am saying though that certain quotes may be isolated to be making an assertion here however that may not be examining this issue as a whole. The OP told us
In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’
Click to expand...
“Always”?? Well, the quote above does stop there. Now we are suppose to believe the original Greek did not have that quote in it.
Just google it, plenty to find.
Click to expand...
Better yet, how about providing a source?
 
Shem Tov is a Rabbinical Translation of Matthew that will come up, who was Shem Tov?? This is a translation that took place in Spain almost during the years of the Inquisition from what I can tell, 1380. There may have been a sort of Hebrew/Aramaic book of Matthew but that was probably translated out of the Greek in the first place and is geared towards the Jews and we Gentiles might not have been eligible likewise for Salvation “until after the end of the age”, so there are a few things when people bring up this argument to be careful of though the arguments themselves to me, seem deceptive and dishonest.

Um, I guess I might as well place this essay in here for reading: tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html I just don’t know who this website is from.
 
Thank you again! This is the kind of information I was looking for. The explanation of Origen was excellent and I agree. Just because the quote stops there does not prove that was all there was, and also later quotes from him clearly indicates there had to have been more.

If any one has had direct discussion with some one regarding this please share how it went. I realize this will mainly come from fringe extremes, but over the years I’ve also heard it come from Fundamentalists trying to push the Acts Baptism.
 
Jkimbo said:
In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew

In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’

There is a lot more if your interested. I’m a historical and biblical research buff so this sort of stuff is right up my alley sort of speak 🙂

I personally do not find any doctrinal errors here, however there is significant evidence abound from early works to question if the last part of this verse after the word “Nations” was modified later on to fit the doctrine. Note I am not disputing the doctrine, only the method used.

When I am confronted with arguments against the supposed modified ending of Matt 28:19, I admit it could have been modified later by translators, HOWEVER I am quick to point out there is no doctrinal error there.

That will satisfy most but not all. What I was looking for here is if there is any stronger case that can be made to support it was NOT added later. The burden of proof is certainly on those who question it, but as I said, one could build a compelling case for that.
Click to expand...
abounds, AFAIK-which is not much, all there is of the argument that vs 19 was altered is some evidence from Eusebius’ writings. Doesn’t say anything to me, who knows what texts Eusebius was working with? If I remember, his ‘contra Marcellus’ has the regular formula twice.
 
DaveBj said:
I’ve been messin’ with the Greek for 20 years or so, and this is the first I’ve ever heard of any “controversy.” I have both the Nestle-Aland Greek text and the Greek NT according to the Majority Text, and the only footnotes in that verse have to do with whether there is nun or oun after “going,” and alternate forms of “baptizing.” If there is “so much controversy,” how come the scholarly editions of the Greek text don’t mention it?
Click to expand...
I just recently came across this from a Oneness pentecostal minister. This is one of their root claims, that this part of Matthew was not part of the original and was added. I have been researching to refute this claim. I will read the rest of the thread.
 
pablope said:
I just recently came across this from a Oneness pentecostal minister. This is one of their root claims, that this part of Matthew was not part of the original and was added. I have been researching to refute this claim. I will read the rest of the thread.
Click to expand...
You know, it just struck me that when they claim this fellow Conybeare found some of an ancient manuscript of Matthew missing ‘supposedly’, I believe that happened in 1903 we are led to believe. You know, that really is quite a long time ago.

I think CAF has another thread on this from some time ago. So this has come up before. In general, I do know Bible scholars really don’t put much stock in this claim. Most of the old manuscripts they have do in fact, have the version we see in the Bible in Matthew 28:19, just the way it is.

JWs have a strict moral code and of course, falter the way Catholics and all do but to me, they seem much more trustworthy. JWs have their odd beliefs from our perspective but aside from the JW’s denying Christ as God, the Oneness Pentecostals I do believe really have an irreverence for conventional Christianity, perhaps unintentional but all the same so and if you aren’t ready for that, it can take you aback.
 
My limited experience with those from the Protestant variations, including some cults as well, is they will mix their sources often to prove their argument or point, but are totally blind to the fact that even their sources although they manage to find a verse or section to promote their argument, their sources also contain material to refute other arguments they have!

A case in point, many years ago I ran across a rather interesting cult, the Way International, who denies the Trinity, baptism, the virgin birth, and even claiming their were 4 crucified with Jesus, not 2. Now they do take a very literal approach and quote many sources, and if one was new to Bibical research could very easily be amazed by them. We concerning the verse
Matt 27:46 from the George Lamsa’s Aramaic Translation, where instead of the Tradition cry of “My God, My God why has thou forsaken me”, it is “For this reason I was spared”. What they will not mention is that even in the Aramaic translation, Matt 28:19 is intact. I found the Jehovah Witnesses do precisely the same thing. These folks will love to point to our resources that they feel support their view and neglect to see the whole picture that even those sources they think they found to support a particular view, on the whole will tend to disagree with the majority of their teachings! Keep this in mind!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top