Question about Matthew 28:19

[White Rabbit]

Ok, I was just wondering if anybody had any links to why the verse was changed from the original text, if it was heretical, or the Early Church did it. Thanks.

[White Rabbit]

Anybody?

[Rick of Wessex]

What do you mean by "the verse was changed"? Please, elaborate.

Rick

[White Rabbit]

What do you mean by "the verse was changed"? Please, elaborate.

Rick

The original was supposed to be "in my name" but it got changed to "int the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," at least that's what I heard.

[Julio]

The original was supposed to be "in my name" but it got changed to "int the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," at least that's what I heard.

This is simply incorrect. No such variant reading is recorded in any critical text, and critical editions will usually incorporate as many variants as possible in the footnotes. This would be a particularly significant one, and it appears nowhere, so no text reading "baptizing them in my name" likely even exists. So, you may rest assured that there's no "whodunnit" to figure out! ;)

[White Rabbit]

My source http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50 seems to indicate otherwise. Is it wrong?

[Suzannah]

My source http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50 seems to indicate otherwise. Is it wrong?

Since the Unitarian Church is non-Trinitarian, and therefore non-Christian, I think we can safely assume that yes, they are simply wrong. The term "Biblical Unitarian" is an oxymoron.

Sorry!

[White Rabbit]

I am in the middle of a debate with some non-Christians in the General Apologetics forum. The title of the thread is "Is God a Trinity?" In this discussion, they have presented links to sites that show the trinity phrase of Matthew 28:19 is a late addition. Therefore, I wanted to know if you could help me out with providing sources to refute their assertion. It would be of benefit to have the a source from the Orthodox position and one from another source so that I have both sides of the coin covered. I look forward to your assistance.

P.S. Suzannah, I didn't know what "unitarian" meant lol

[Julio]

My source http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=50 seems to indicate otherwise. Is it wrong?

Yes, it is wrong. You will note that the only textual testimony they offered is from Eusebios' works,. That is pretty lean indeed! Every existing manuscript of the text of St Matthews Gospel, all ancient translations, and multitudes of quotations from the Church Fathers read "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". (Actually, the only variant is that most say "baptizing them", using the present tense, and some say "having baptized them", using the aorist tense).

Most critical editions wouldn't have a problem eliminating a trinitarian reference if it was clearly an interpolation: this is the case in I John 5:7, for instance. The fact that they didn't do so in St. Matthew 28:19, and that they didn't note what would be a very important variant, means that this is a made-up issue.

[Suzannah]

I am in the middle of a debate with some non-Christians in the General Apologetics forum. The title of the thread is "Is God a Trinity?" In this discussion, they have presented links to sites that show the trinity phrase of Matthew 28:19 is a late addition. Therefore, I wanted to know if you could help me out with providing sources to refute their assertion. It would be of benefit to have the a source from the Orthodox position and one from another source so that I have both sides of the coin covered. I look forward to your assistance.

P.S. Suzannah, I didn't know what "unitarian" meant lol

;) Know thy enemy! LOL

If anyone is attempting to show that the Trinity is non existent, they are simply outside the bounds of historical, theological and mainline Christianity. Therefore, whatever they may be, they are not Christian. You may want to approach your debate from that standpoint and do some research on the LXX and the Septuagint.

[Philip]

Is it wrong?

Yes, it is. Here are several quotation predating Eusebius

The Didache (c. AD 70) quotes Matthew 28:19 in chapter 7:


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.

Tertullian (c. AD 200) quotes it in the 20th chapter of 'Perscription Agains Heresies'

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."

He quotes it again in 'On Baptism'
He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

St Cyprian (c. AD 250) quotes it in his 24 Epistle (see also his 62nd and 72nd Epistles, Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, and his writings at the 7th Council of Carthage):

The Lord, when, after His resurrection, He sent forth His apostles, charges them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."2 And the Apostle John, remembering this charge, subsequently lays it down in his epistle: "Hereby," says he, "we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He that saith he knoweth Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

An anonymous ante-Nicean bishop writes the following against Novatian:

Whence also the Lord Christ charges upon Peter, and moreover also upon the rest of His disciples, "Go ye and preach the Gospel to the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." That is, that that same Trinity which operated figuratively in Noah's days through the dove, now operates in the Church spiritually through the disciples.

Another anonymous ante-Nicean writer opposing rebaptism quotes:

Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: "Go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."17 Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover has been used to be observed, yet it behoves us to consider that invocation of the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name, in which name all kinds of power are accustomed to be exercised, and occasionally some even by men outside the Church.

The verse has been quoted throughout Christian history as it appears today. You will probably be better served reading the Fathers themselves than accepting statements from antiChristian websites.

[White Rabbit]

Could you provide links to support that, they are kind of "link happy" for some reason...

[Philip]

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2

[Suzannah]

Could you provide links to support that, they are kind of "link happy" for some reason...

Forgive me for saying so, but perhaps you ought to do some research before engaging in any more debate. It helps to have practical knowledge on your side first, before you try to convince others that you are right. And arguing for the sake of arguing isn't really Christian either. Just my two cents.

[Rilian]

I think the thing to keep in mind is the New Testament is incomprehensible without the Trinity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are present throughout, it is the very structure of what is taking place. This is not all predicated on a single verse, and if your faith is built on a single verse, watch out.

[White Rabbit]

Forgive me for saying so, but perhaps you ought to do some research before engaging in any more debate. It helps to have practical knowledge on your side first, before you try to convince others that you are right. And arguing for the sake of arguing isn't really Christian either. Just my two cents.

I am not trying to prove I am right, and I am not arguing, I am merely attempting to learn what others think and learn about my Faith in seeing if they are right or wrong. :)

[Philip]

I am not trying to prove I am right, and I am not arguing, I am merely attempting to learn what others think and learn about my Faith in seeing if they are right or wrong. :)

Then why offer links for them?

I agree with Suzannah. Your statement that

P.S. Suzannah, I didn't know what "unitarian" meant lol

is rather disturbing. If you are not familiar with such terms, you will be easily misled.

[White Rabbit]

is rather disturbing. If you are not familiar with such terms, you will be easily misled.


The question is, would I know what a unitarian is now, if it hadn't been for that debate? :D

[Xpycoctomos]

I think such a debate is unfruitful and even hamrful. The best that can happen out of this debate is that you take a systematic approach to the Trinity... which is not Orthodox in Spirit. The Trinity can only be known and understood through prayer and living a Christian life... oh yeah, a over many years of doing this... not four years like myself.

In debating with them, you are talking about the Trinity on their terms, not on Orthodox terms. The trinity is a concept (if I can even prophane it with such a dumb word) that supercedes human understanding and logic. It cannot and should not be argued in human terms, but rather experienced. The best you or anyone can do is suggest they read Orthodox Way and be on your way praying for them.

This will only offer you a stumbling block, I guarentee you and this is one of the grave dangers of the Internet... too easy access to too many people out there who think they know what they are talking about... like me.

John

[Orthosdoxa]

John, did you mean unfruitful?

[Xpycoctomos]

uhhh.. yeah. Thanks Anonykat :doh:

[White Rabbit]

Golly am I glad you guys are here to keep my beliefs from floating off into space :hug:

[Lotar]

IIRC, not to long ago, TAW lost two of its younger members who thought they could debate the philosophy majors in the GA.

Be carefull about venturing into the open forums.

[White Rabbit]

IIRC, not to long ago, TAW lost two of its younger members who thought they could debate the philosophy majors in the GA.

Be carefull about venturing into the open forums.

I'll keep that in mind.