Matthew 28:19

[Teabag]

Matthew 28:19

What evidence is there that the end of this has been altered?

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” inserted at a later date? Is this right?

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Matthew 28:19

What evidence is there that the end of this has been altered?

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” inserted at a later date? Is this right?

My JERUSALEM BIBLE has this footnote:

“This formula is perhaps a reflection of the liturgical usage of the writer’s own time.”

 

[Teabag]

What is the original ending?

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t know of any evidence for an alternate ending to Matthew.

We don’t have any original copies of any of the books of the Bible. What we have are multiple manuscripts of varying age, the oldest of which come from centuries after they originals were written.

There are some textual variants between these ancient manuscripts, but I don’t think any of them leave out Matthew 28:19. I’m not super fluent in these matters, but my Verbum software has copies of several different ancient Greek manuscripts and they all include this verse, and they all include the same words.

 

[MT1926]

Matthew 28:19

What evidence is there that the end of this has been altered?

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” inserted at a later date? Is this right?

Are you speaking of the original ending saying “Holy Ghost”? as in the Douay-Rheims

Matthew 28:19Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Matthew 28:19

What evidence is there that the end of this has been altered?

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” inserted at a later date? Is this right?

If I read it correctly both the codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus have Matthew 28:19. These codices date from about the 4th. century.

 

[Joe_5859]

Teabag, did someone suggest to you that this verse was added later? If so, I’d ask that person for their evidence to support the claim.

 

[JM3]

There is evidence before the 4th century.

Didache

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

JUSTIN MARTYR – THE FIRST APOLOGY

CHAPTER LXI – CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book III

Chapter XVII.-The Apostles Teach that It Was Neither Christ Nor the Saviour, But the Holy Spirit, Who Did Descend Upon Jesus. The Reason for This Descent.

1. It certainly was in the power of the apostles to declare that Christ descended upon Jesus, or that the so-called superior Saviour [came down] upon the dispensational one, or he who is from the invisible places upon him from the Demiurge; but they neither knew nor said anything of the kind: for, had they known it, they would have also certainly stated it. But what really was the case, that did they record, [namely, ] that the Spirit of God as a dove descended upon Him; this Spirit, of whom it was declared by Isaiah, “And the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him,” as I have already said. And again: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me.” That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” 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."

 

[Latinitas]

As stated above, although this verse has been impugned by rationalists, it is undoubtedly authentic, and most scholars recognize it as such, since it’s in all manuscripts, and it’s quoted by early churchmen. There is no convicing evidence to the contrary.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[PJM]

Matthew 28:19

What evidence is there that the end of this has been altered?

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” inserted at a later date? Is this right?

Douay Bible:

[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

NONE that I have ever heard o:shrug: Why do you ask?

Blessings,

Patrickf.

 

[patrick457]

Matthew 28:19

What evidence is there that the end of this has been altered?

“In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” inserted at a later date? Is this right?

Virtually all our surviving manuscripts of Matthew that has this passage intact has the formula. Even if you claim that it’s an addition/alteration, it must have been made very, very early because the manuscripts don’t really reflect it.

Now there is only one recorded textual variant: “Go and make disciples of all nations in my name.” This version is actually only found in Eusebius’ writings. And even then, it’s questionable whether this is a true textual variant: who knows? Maybe Eusebius was just paraphrasing the passage or deliberately reworded it (after all, he did have that habit). Even if it is a (now-lost) genuine textual variant that Eusebius found in his copy of Matthew, it’s likely that this was a minor one, since Eusebius is alone on the landscape: it’s him against other early Christian writings and authors.

As it stands, it’s more likely that the reading “baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” is original than it is for it to be a later addition or alteration.

 

[Teabag]

Cheers people