Resources on Matthew 28:19

Page 1 of 1 (14 items)
This post has 13 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 8329
DAL | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Oct 19 2018 9:28 AM

Which resources would you recommend to study the so called “Trinitarian Formula” in Matthew 28:19? Some argue for a shorter reading “...baptizing them in my name...” instead of “...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...”

Thanks in advance for any recommendations 👍😁👌

DAL

Posts 12066
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 19 2018 9:47 AM

DAL:
Some argue for a shorter reading “...baptizing them in my name...” instead of “...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...”

Who does so?

I'd recommend Lexham textual notes on the bible, Comfort's NT Text and translation commentary and Metzger's Textual Commentary on the GNT, but all three don't discuss such a variant. I don't see it in the NA28 apparatus either.

Running Logos 9 latest (beta) version on Win 10

Posts 8329
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 19 2018 10:59 AM

NB.Mick:

DAL:
Some argue for a shorter reading “...baptizing them in my name...” instead of “...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...”

Who does so?

I'd recommend Lexham textual notes on the bible, Comfort's NT Text and translation commentary and Metzger's Textual Commentary on the GNT, but all three don't discuss such a variant. I don't see it in the NA28 apparatus either.

A ”Messianic Jew” friend, who isn’t even a Jew says the trinitarian formula was added later by the catholic church. He claims there’s no such thing as OT and NT, that that distinction is part of the “replacement doctrine” also introduced by the Catholic Church in a.d. 325 during the first counsil on Nicea. My WBC on Matthew seems to lean towards the shorter reading.

DAL

Posts 12066
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 19 2018 11:36 AM

There seems to be no NT manuscript evidence for this position. I don't have WBS, but this is from a footnote to the commentary in Morris' PNTC: 

"C. K. Barrett points out that Eusebius quotes the passage in the form “Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all the Gentiles in my name,” which omits the reference to baptism and to the Trinitarian formula. But he points out that no trace of this reading is found in any MS of Matthew or indeed in any writing other than that of Eusebius."

Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992).

And of course the NET bible notes discusses this as well:

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 Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Mt 28:19.

Craig Blomberg writes in the NAC: 

The singular “name” followed by the threefold reference to “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian “formula” anywhere in the Gospels, and it is therefore often accused of being a very late development and not at all something Jesus himself could have imagined.113 But this view misjudges both the speed of the development of New Testament theology (cf. Jesus as God already in Acts 3:14–15—unless by circular reasoning this passage is also dismissed as late because of its high Christology),114 as well as how technical a formula this is. Acts 2:38 demonstrates that other baptismal formulae were also used in the earliest stages of Christianity. Jesus has already spoken of God as his Father (Matt 11:27; 24:36), of himself as the Son (11:27; 16:27; 24:36), and of blasphemy against God’s work in himself as against the Spirit (12:28). Mounce states, “That Jesus should gather together into summary form his own references … in his final charge to the disciples seems quite natural.”115 On the other hand, it is not inconceivable that Matthew distilled the essence of Jesus’ more detailed parting instructions for the Eleven into concise language using the terminology developed later in the early church’s baptismal services. As R. E. O. White reflects: “If Jesus commanded the making of disciples and the baptizing of them ‘in My name,’ and Matt. expressed Christ’s fullest meaning (for disciples ‘of all nations’) by using the fuller description current in his own day, who shall say that he seriously misrepresented our Lord’s intention?”116

Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 432.

Running Logos 9 latest (beta) version on Win 10

Posts 8329
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 19 2018 1:09 PM

Thanks NB Mick! It seems all the information concerning this issue is found in commentaries and not on textual criticism books. I found a website that tackles the issue. Hopefully I’ll be able to find more information on this.

DAL

Posts 13419
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 19 2018 1:11 PM

DAL:
Which resources would you recommend to study the so called “Trinitarian Formula” in Matthew 28:19? Some argue for a shorter reading “...baptizing them in my name...” instead of “...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...”

I did two searches:

  • (Eusebius, "my name") INTERSECTS {Milestone <Mt 28:19>}
  • (Eusebius, "my name") NEAR <Mt 28:19>

There's very little in my library that discusses it, and nothing substantial. That rather suggests your friend's view is somewhat esoteric. There's a brief discussion in When Cultists Ask, in Plummer's commentary, Hermeneia, and a footnote in NIGTC.

The most substantial discussion is found in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (vol 2, pg 379f). That's your best bet (although it's dated, of course).

The Hermeneia commentary says:

Since the “trinitarian” formula is also known in other contemporary Syrian texts (Ignatius Magn. 13.2; Odes Sol. 23.22), we can say with some confidence that it was already known in Syria, where Matthew originated, before 100. The earlier popular thesis that the original text of Matt 28:18–20* did not mention baptism is, appropriately, scarcely advocated any more.

Posts 8329
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 19 2018 2:15 PM

Thank you Mark!

I have all those resources I’ll check them out. I found this website to be useful too.  It seems that only a quote from Eusebius is the only “proof/support”  for this, but my friend seems to think that there is a lot of manuscript evidence supporting his view. I have yet to find any.  I’ll just end up praying for him and let God deal with him, because he’s becoming somewhat closed minded now thinking that everything in the New Testament was somehow changed/altered by the Catholic Church...so go figure.

Here’s the website: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12794/was-the-text-of-matthew-2819-changed 

DAL

Posts 8329
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 19 2018 3:12 PM

The End of the First Gospel by F.F. Bruce was recommended to me at another forum.  Great article! Here’s the link:

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1st-gospel_bruce.pdf 

DAL

Posts 5416
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 20 2018 1:30 PM

DAL:
It seems that only a quote from Eusebius is the only “proof/support”  for this, but my friend seems to think that there is a lot of manuscript evidence supporting his view. I have yet to find any.  I’ll just end up praying for him and let God deal with him, because he’s becoming somewhat closed minded now thinking that everything in the New Testament was somehow changed/altered by the Catholic Church...so go figure.

Most people have wanting discernment skills, so bathwater and babies tend to be constant companions. Regardless of whether the "classic" doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical or not, believing that it isn't does not require one to eradicate references to "Father, Son, and Spirit". It's a work of small minds to insists that truth must be an "all or nothing" proposition at every turn.

To explain what I'm getting at, consider the following:

**(A)Bible mentions "Father, Son, & (Holy) Spirit" ---> (B)Church "fathers" badly misconstrue this ---> (C)Results in erroneous "Doctrine of the Trinity"

Typical Response? People who recognize error of doctrine C are not content to blame B but feel compelled to challenge and bring disrepute on A.

This kind of scorched earth all-or-nothingism is at least as bad as any imagined false doctrine. It's a kind of idolatry...and "concerned believers" do it all the time. In the secular world it's called "politics".

ASROCK x570 Creator, AMD R9 3950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, Asus Strix RTX 2080 ti, 2tb m.2 Seagate Firecuda SSD (x2) ...and other mechano-digital happiness.

"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."

Posts 11433
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 20 2018 2:02 PM

I was surprised, just in a single thread quoting a few commentaries, just how many incorrect facts were introduced by the commentarians. I started counting, and gave up after double digits. Sloppy, sloppy. Always check.

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 2198
Mark | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 20 2018 2:44 PM

DAL:

The End of the First Gospel by F.F. Bruce was recommended to me at another forum.  Great article! Here’s the link:

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1st-gospel_bruce.pdf 

DAL

Thanks for this link.  Why is this journal not available in Logos?

Posts 8329
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 20 2018 6:09 PM

Denise:

I was surprised, just in a single thread quoting a few commentaries, just how many incorrect facts were introduced by the commentarians. I started counting, and gave up after double digits. Sloppy, sloppy. Always check.

Then why don’t you enlighten us Denise? Maybe you know something we don’t know — why not share instead of leaving us with incorrect facts?

👍😁👌

DAL

Posts 33245
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 20 2018 6:34 PM

DAL:
Then why don’t you enlighten us Denise?

Perhaps she has observed the forums on this topic.

DAL:
Maybe you know something we don’t know — why not share instead of leaving us with incorrect facts?

Perhaps she hasn't the time

Fresh from the dog house where he had a wonderful nap ....

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 11433
DMB | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 20 2018 6:41 PM

DAL:

Denise:

I was surprised, just in a single thread quoting a few commentaries, just how many incorrect facts were introduced by the commentarians. I started counting, and gave up after double digits. Sloppy, sloppy. Always check.

Then why don’t you enlighten us Denise? Maybe you know something we don’t know — why not share instead of leaving us with incorrect facts?

👍😁👌

DAL

Well, it's not particularly difficult. Just read each sentence, posing the question, is that true (or logical, since our dog arrived)? Start with your passage and the second quoted commentary ... nothing demands a 'trinitarian' in the passage. Sure, it might. And then,  it might not. Then continue.

Actually the first quoted is suspect (I didn't count suspicious).... I have to see what Eusebius actually said, instead of 'in the form'. He didn't know english ...  you'd need to check the original for whatever 'the form' means.

I was disappointed with Hermineia ... Matthew was written in the 1st century. Really?  Exactly how is that true? More correct ... most scholar surmise (or believe) it was written etc, etc. They don't even know who wrote it. The same commentary augustly puts it in Syria ... guessing again ... he doesn't know, and he knows it ... 'with some confidence' ... not much  if any.

And so on.  Now, most commentary readers would shrug (and validly so). The issue is doctrine, not details.

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Page 1 of 1 (14 items) | RSS