Question on passage

During a recent discussion about the passage in Mathew 28:19, I was told that the portion (clause?) reading: "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" was not found in the older manuscripts. I have the Scholar's Library of Logos 4 and on performing a passage guide, could not find any comment regarding the origin of the stated clause. Does the Scholar's Library provide any resource(s) that may shed light on the stated issue? If not, what resource(s) would you recommend that provides an objective evaluation of the issue?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Robert Pavich

Hector,

On qustions like these the NET bible is a good quick resource; and you have it.

Another good one is Bruce Metzger's book "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament"

The NET translation has a LOT of translator's notes in it (tn) and Metzger is pretty good.

I noticed that Metzger doesn't mention it but the NET does; here is the note for the NET:

28 tc Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19, ” ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163–64, 167–75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27–29.

Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2006; 2006).

Also, a technical commentary would (or should) discuss it.

PS: I looked in the NA27 and it had no indication that this passage was questionable.

You have the NET and you have the NA27, but you'll have to purchase Metzger.

Rosie Perera

During a recent discussion about the passage in Mathew 28:19, I was told that the portion (clause?) reading: "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" was not found in the older manuscripts. I have the Scholar's Library of Logos 4 and on performing a passage guide, could not find any comment regarding the origin of the stated clause. Does the Scholar's Library provide any resource(s) that may shed light on the stated issue? If not, what resource(s) would you recommend that provides an objective evaluation of the issue?

With Scholar's Library, you have the NET Bible, which has very good footnotes explaining textual issues. In this case, it does not disappoint. See footnote 28. EDIT: I see Robert beat me to that and quoted the footnote.

You can also do a search through your entire library for all places where this verse is discussed by using this search syntax: <Matt 28:19>

The NET Bible footnote mentions that this issue has something to do with how Eusebius quoted that verse, so you can narrow down the search to find more relevant results by adding his name to the search criteria: <Matt 28:19> Eusebius

You might not have the Tyndale New Testament Commentary set as it's not included in your base package, but that commentary is one of the places that turned up in my refined library search of that verse:

"It has been argued that these words were not part of the original text of Matthew, since Eusebius regularly in his pre-Nicene works quotes Matthew 28:19 in the shorter form ‘Go and make disciples of all nations in my name’,⁶⁴ but the fact that no extant manuscript of Matthew has this reading suggests that this was rather Eusebius’ own abbreviation than a text he found in existing manuscripts.^65"

Here are the footnotes:

⁶⁴So most fully and attractively H. Kosmala, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 4 (1965), pp. 132–147.

⁶⁵See esp. B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning, pp. 151–175.

Unfortunately neither of those resources is available in Logos. But the Kosmala article referred to (which is titled "The Conclusion of Matthew") can be found almost in entirety in the preview pages of his Studies, Essays, and Reviews: New Testament on Google Books (missing 4 pages out of 16). That only presents one side of the question. Googling Hubbard "The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning" you can find others who cite that resource and argue for the other side, such as this article by David C. Sim.

There's also an extensive discussion of the issue with that verse in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC) volume on Matthew (available as a stand-alone volume download from Logos, though a bit pricey).

A footnote in that, referring to the trinitarian formula in Matt 28:19, says "The earliest parallels to Matthew’s usage are Did. 7:1, 3 and Justin, 1 Apol. 61, 65."

I do happen to have the Didache (available from Logos in Apostolic Fathers in Greek and English). Here's Did. 7:1-4:

"7. Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in running water. (2) But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. (3) But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." (4) And before the baptism, let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand."

Justin Martyr's First Apology is in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. But in case you don't have that resource in Logos, it's also available online on CCEL. Here are the chapters cited: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxi.html and http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxv.html.

As mentioned in their respective introductions, the Didache was written anywhere from 50 to 300 AD, but most likely closer to about 100 AD, and Justin's Apology was written in the 2nd century. So these are pretty early attestations to the trinitarian formula.

This was the first I'd ever heard of this question. A very intriguing one, so thanks for asking it. We'd best not go further and try to resolve the question here as that would violate forum guidelines. But I wanted to show you (and others) how one could research such a question using Logos searching and resources, even going beyond Logos if necessary.

And this quest has led me to suggest that Logos get the SBL Dissertation Series in which the cited Hubbard and Schaberg dissertations were published.

UPDATE: For some reason the forum editor mangled the order of my paragraphs so my post would have made no sense in some places. Apologies. I've fixed it now.

Jack Caviness

If not, what resource(s) would you recommend that provides an objective evaluation of the issue?

Robert and Rosie have given you some good information. I just wanted to add this quote from a footnote in the NIGTC on this verse (New International Greek Testament Commentary, available from Logos):

[quote]One form this identification of the Matthean language as a foreign body has taken is the proposal that a gloss is involved here. The sole textual basis for the claim is that in his earlier writings Eusebius at times, in quoting from Mt. 28:19, uses ‘in my name’ in place of the fuller form. Given Eusebius’s tendency to abbreviation and loose citation, one would not normally, in the face of the unanimous textual support for the longer reading in Matthew, reckon with the need to make anything text-critically of this use of ‘in my name’. The surprising level of interest in the Eusebius reading has been possible only because the Matthean language has seemed to be a foreign body in the Gospel text. Other scholars, while accepting the longer reading, see it as a baptismal formula incorporated by Matthew but not well integrated into his overall narrative.

Metzger probably did not comment on this variation because it has absolutely no textual support.

Hector Marquez

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147504#Comment_147504

Robert, Rosie and Jack: Thanks for the information provided. You guys are great assetts to these forums. God bless.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147504#Comment_147504

Rosie,

Wow...very thorough! thanks....

Jack....somehow I missed the NIGTC...I'll check it out....

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147540#Comment_147540

Jack....somehow I missed the NIGTC...I'll check it out....

Unfortunately, I have also missed this resource too many times. I am glad that the OP asked a question that caused me to consult one of its volumes. I will go there more often in the future.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147646#Comment_147646

Unfortunately, I have also missed this resource too many times. I am glad that the OP asked a question that caused me to consult one of its volumes. I will go there more often in the future.

Maybe you need to add it to your commentary prioritizations, or tag its volumes and add them to a scholarly commentary collection or something, so that it turns up more often in searches for you.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/147675#Comment_147675

Maybe you need to add it to your commentary prioritizations, or tag its volumes and add them to a scholarly commentary collection or something, so that it turns up more often in searches for you.

I have done that. My commentaries are divided into 5 collections. The problem is that I usually consult those classified as Exegetical, and NIGTC is classified as Critical. I need to pay more attention to that collection. It only contains a handful of resources: NIGTC, UBS Handbooks, Metzger, etc. I just had not realized how valuable this particular resource is. With the L4 release, I acquired several commentary sets which which I was unfamiliar. I am just beginning to sort through the pile.