Not wanting to discuss a textual issue, but just a little background prior to my query about Logos translations:
I have been having a discussion w. someone very learned who suspects that Matthew 28.19 is not original. I realize that this is an old canard and I have already sent him many early writers who refer to this text (Martyr, Ignatius, etc.). He says that if I could locate a reading, say, in the 200’s, contains the reading that he would concede. I have already quoted to him the Sahidic translation, which is among the earliest translations of the Greek text.
Enter Logos: I am just wanting to know what is the earliest translation available in Logos? Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic? If at all possible I would greatly appreciate a link in Logos (or otherwise, e.g., Amazon).
He really is a fine, humble and sincere Christian man—who is also very scholarly (he was a Bible college president for 20 years). I have zero doubt that this reading is original—just thinking that the early translations might actually be a good route to take w. this gentleman.
Thank you in advance.
Note: If this thread is in anyway a violation of forum policies, please feel free to delete this thread๐.
https://apostolicacademics.com/
I suspect you are simply going to kick the can to the age of the manuscript e.g. the Syriac Peshitta. Your best answer would be to require him to show a reference without it that is first or second century. Beyond the Aramaic and Latin, the earliest translations are probably Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Slavonic, et. al. and they are well outside your time frame. I know the Old Latin (pre-Vulgate) is not in Logos but is available online. The Gothic is nearing release in Logos. Old Church Slavonic is likely available online.
Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
MJ. Smith:I suspect you are simply going to kick the can to the age of the manuscript e.g. the Syriac Peshitta. Your best answer would be to require him to show a reference without it that is first or second century. Beyond the Aramaic and Latin, the earliest translations are probably Armenian, Georgian, et. al. and they are well outside your time frame.
He sent me a word-doc.-paper that he wrote journaling his suspicions so I will check that to see how far back he’s reaching.
I will also check into these translations you referenced above. Of course, advocates of this position appeal to Eusebius & Conybeare—which has long ago been debunked by both liberal and conservative scholars. I wrote Wallace about this and he agreed.
MJ. Smith: I suspect you are simply going to kick the can to the age of the manuscript e.g. the Syriac Peshitta. Your best answer would be to require him to show a reference without it that is first or second century. Beyond the Aramaic and Latin, the earliest translations are probably Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Slavonic, et. al. and they are well outside your time frame. I know the Old Latin (pre-Vulgate) is not in Logos but is available online. The Gothic is nearing release in Logos. Old Church Slavonic is likely available online.
Ahhh—forgot about Slavonic & OL. Gothic seems interesting—will look for this on Logos.
Update: Logos has released their Gothic resources - only the Gospel of Mark; online I see that the fragments of Matthew do not include the chapter under discussion http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/
I should have headed to bed an hour ago but use http://www.vetuslatina.org/manuscripts for the Old Latin research and see what the New Testament Manuscript explorer might have for early textual fragments ...
MJ. Smith: I should have headed to bed an hour ago but use http://www.vetuslatina.org/manuscripts for the Old Latin research and see what the New Testament Manuscript explorer might have for early textual fragments ...
๐—Same here regarding bedtime ๐. Textual criticism is the *LAST* topic I need to delve into when trying to wind down.
Thanks for the link. Going to check Ignatius also, but he states that the ECF writings are so full of interpolations that it’s often difficult to ascertain originality. I responded by pointing out that, while this is often true, if this logic is followed out to its natural end, then why accept *ANY* ancient writings as authentic?
Signing off for the night. Will check back in tomorrow night. Much appreciated ๐.
FYI Unfortunately in the Old Syrian Gospels the last verses of the gospel of Matthew are lacking.
https://www.logos.com/product/1799/old-syrian-gospels-codex-curetonianus
https://www.logos.com/product/1800/old-syrian-gospels-codex-sinaiticus
HJ. van der Wal:FYI Unfortunately in the Old Syrian Gospels the last verses of the gospel of Matthew are lacking.
It was a hot day in Damascus, plus they ran out of ink. Users were screaming to meet the ship date, what to do? Add it during the next update, of course.
I really like the Old Syrian.
"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."
Denise: Users were screaming to meet the ship date, what to do? Add it during the next update, of course.
Users were screaming to meet the ship date, what to do? Add it during the next update, of course.
Denise:Users were screaming to meet the ship date, what to do?
Enable-and-Submit-Log-Files | Install
Puddin’:Ahhh—forgot about Slavonic & OL. Gothic seems interesting—will look for this on Logos.
You might also approach it by verifying his own support.WARNING: REMEMBER THAT IDENTIFYING BAD SUPPORT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE POSITION IS WRONG - ONLY THAT THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS MISUSED. For example from A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 a randomly chosen site I know nothing about:
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "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." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "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." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
What Ratzinger actually said in a slightly larger context:
The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. 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.” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Revised Edition), trans. J. R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 82–83.
The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. 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.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Revised Edition), trans. J. R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 82–83.
Ratzinger was clearly speaking of the Apostles' Creed in the excerpt on the web page not Matthew 28:19. Such dishonest use of a reference makes me respond like Bill the Cat.
HJ. van der Wal: FYI Unfortunately in the Old Syrian Gospels the last verses of the gospel of Matthew are lacking. https://www.logos.com/product/1799/old-syrian-gospels-codex-curetonianus https://www.logos.com/product/1800/old-syrian-gospels-codex-sinaiticus
Just as I suspected. I have repeatedly pointed out that many portions of Matthew are fragmentary in the earliest MSS—yet obviously no one seriously thinks the portions not found are later interpolations.
Much appreciated—you just saved me some $$!
Denise: HJ. van der Wal:FYI Unfortunately in the Old Syrian Gospels the last verses of the gospel of Matthew are lacking. It was a hot day in Damascus, plus they ran out of ink. Users were screaming to meet the ship date, what to do? Add it during the next update, of course.
๐ณ๐คช
MJ. Smith: Puddin’:Ahhh—forgot about Slavonic & OL. Gothic seems interesting—will look for this on Logos. You might also approach it by verifying his own support.WARNING: REMEMBER THAT IDENTIFYING BAD SUPPORT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE POSITION IS WRONG - ONLY THAT THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS MISUSED. For example from A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 a randomly chosen site I know nothing about: Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "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." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts. What Ratzinger actually said in a slightly larger context: The answers can only be found by looking at the concrete shape of Christian belief, and this we now mean to consider, using the so-called Apostles’ Creed as a guiding thread. 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.” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (Revised Edition), trans. J. R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 82–83. Ratzinger was clearly speaking of the Apostles' Creed in the excerpt on the web page not Matthew 28:19. Such dishonest use of a reference makes me respond like Bill the Cat.
Yeah, I know about this misuse of the Ratzinger quotes relative to this issue. In fact, I know the man (indirectly) who wrote that article you linked! But, this man is farrr smarter & more sincere than that.
I couldn’t agree with you more regarding such dishonest tactics. Honest mistakes are one thing—blatant “deception by omission“ is another (AKA Neglected Aspect Fallacy).
I was aghast the first time I saw this misuse of the Ratzinger quote. Hard to believe people still use this๐ก!
If not a violation of forum policy (only providing context to my quest for a source)—here’s a relevant portion of his paper on the MS tradition prior to the fourth century, so that perhaps someone can direct me to the right resource (preferably in Logos):
The MSS Evidence:
It is a curious fact that we do not have any extant manuscript (MS) that contains all of Matthew, dating prior to the fourth century. โโFor instance, the listing of the papyri as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland’s The Text of the New Testament (2nd Edition, 1995, pp. 96-103) gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri (the number at the time of Aland’s printing). In P37 Matthew 26:52 seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the papyri. Philip Comfort and David Barrett, in their book, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (1999, pp. 6 & 13) mention some of the MSS of Matthew. On page 6 they present a list of the verses from Matthew (with Matthew also ending at 26:52), and on page 13, they say that they were providing only those manuscripts which, “dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300).”
In fact, here is a list of papyri from the second to fourth centuries that contain Matthew:
P64, c. 200 – Matt. 3, 5, 26P104/ P Oxy. (Oxyrhynchus Papyri) 4404, late 2nd Cent. – Matt. 21 P77/ P.Oxy. 2683, 2nd-3rd Cent. – Matt 23P103/ P.Oxy. 4403, 2nd- 3rd Cent. – Matt. 13-14P1/ P Oxy., 3rd Cent. – Matt. 1P101/ P Oxy. 4401, 3rd Cent. – Matt. 3-4P70/ P Oxy. 2384, 3rd Cent. – Matt 2-3, 11-12, 24P45, 3rd Cent. - Matt. 20-21, 25P53, 3rd Cent. - Matt. 26P102/ P Oxy. 4402, 3rd– 4th Cent. – Matt. 4P37, 3rd-4th – Matt. 26
P71/ P Oxy. 2385, 4th Cent. – Matt 19
P62, 4th Cent. - Matt. 11
P86, 4th Cent. – Matt. 5P35, 4th Cent.(?) – Matt. 25P25, late 4th Cent. – Matt. 18-19P19/P Oxy. 1170, 4th-5th Cent. – Matt. 10-11P21/P Oxy. 1227, 4th-5th Cent. – Matt. 12
Thus, we do not find any MS of Matthew which is complete or that contains chapter 28:19 prior to the fourth century.
My question would be why is it curious? The longer the book, the more pages to be damaged or lost. Matthew is not the only book that we lack an early complete manuscript. From Wikipedia:
Earliest extant manuscripts[edit] The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century. The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century.[26] The following table lists the earliest extant manuscript witnesses for the books of the New Testament. Book Earliest extant manuscripts Date Condition Matthew {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}1, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}19, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}21, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}25, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}37, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}53, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}64, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}67, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}70, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}77, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}101, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}103, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}104[27] c. 150–250 (2nd–3rd century) Large fragments Mark {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}137 c. 150–250 (2nd–3rd century) Large fragments Luke {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}4, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}69, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}75, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45 c. 175–250 (2nd–3rd century) Large fragments John {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}5, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}6, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}22, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}28, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}39, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}52, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}66, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}75, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}80, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}90, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}95, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}106 c. 125–250 (2nd–3rd century) Large fragments Acts {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}29, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}38, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}48, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}53, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}74, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}91 Early 3rd century[28] Large fragments Romans {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}27, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}40, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46 c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century) Fragments 1 Corinthians {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}14, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}15, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46 c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century) Fragments 2 Corinthians {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46 c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century) Fragments Galatians {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46 c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century) Fragments Ephesians {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}49 c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century) Fragments Philippians {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}16, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46 c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century) Fragments Colossians {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46 c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century) Fragments 1 Thessalonians {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}30, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}65 c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century) Fragments 2 Thessalonians {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}30 Early 3rd century Fragments 1 Timothy ื c. 350 (4th century) Complete 2 Timothy ื c. 350 (4th century) Complete Titus {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}32 c. 200 (late 2nd – early 3rd century) Fragment Philemon {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}87 3rd century Fragment Hebrews {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}12, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}13, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}17, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46 c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century) Fragments James {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}20, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}23, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}100 3rd Century Fragments 1 Peter {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}81,[27] {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}72 c. 300 (late 3rd – early 4th century) Fragments 2 Peter {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}72 c. 300 (late 3rd – early 4th century) Fragments 1 John {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}9 3rd century Fragment 2 John ื c. 350 (4th century) Complete 3 John ื c. 350 (4th century) Complete Jude {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}72, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}78 c. 300 (late 3rd – early 4th century) Fragments Revelation {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}18, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}24, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}47, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}98, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}115 c. 150–250 (2nd-3rd century) Fragment
The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century. The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century.[26] The following table lists the earliest extant manuscript witnesses for the books of the New Testament.
Book
Earliest extant manuscripts
Date
Condition
Matthew
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}1, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}19, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}21, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}25, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}37, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}53, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}64, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}67, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}70, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}77, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}101, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}103, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}104[27]
c. 150–250 (2nd–3rd century)
Large fragments
Mark
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}137
Luke
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}4, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}69, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}75, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45
c. 175–250 (2nd–3rd century)
John
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}5, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}6, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}22, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}28, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}39, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}52, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}66, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}75, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}80, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}90, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}95, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}106
c. 125–250 (2nd–3rd century)
Acts
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}29, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}38, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}45, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}48, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}53, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}74, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}91
Early 3rd century[28]
Romans
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}27, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}40, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46
c. 175–225 (2nd–3rd century)
Fragments
1 Corinthians
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}14, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}15, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46
2 Corinthians
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46
Galatians
Ephesians
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}49
Philippians
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}16, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}30, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}65
2 Thessalonians
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}30
Early 3rd century
1 Timothy
ื
c. 350 (4th century)
Complete
2 Timothy
Titus
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}32
c. 200 (late 2nd – early 3rd century)
Fragment
Philemon
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}87
3rd century
Hebrews
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}12, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}13, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}17, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}46
James
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}20, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}23, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}100
3rd Century
1 Peter
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}81,[27] {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}72
c. 300 (late 3rd – early 4th century)
2 Peter
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}72
1 John
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}9
2 John
3 John
Jude
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}72, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}78
Revelation
{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}18, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}24, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}47, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}98, {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}}115
c. 150–250 (2nd-3rd century)
It's too bad that the lectionary manuscripts are not yet more widely available. They may well contain useful data at least from the Byzantine tradition which I've verified used the pericope in early lectionaries.
I would check the apostolic and earliest church fathers if it hadn't been done for me:
Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4 “Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, batpize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.” First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61 “…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.’…” Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1 “…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 Spirit.’…” On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13 “For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.” The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (a.d. 200-235) chapter 21.12-18 “And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time.” Epistle to Magnus by Cyprian (a.d. 250) chapter 7 “…But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the same law which the universal church holds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may be objected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed…” The traditional reading of Matthew 28.19 was alive and well before a.d. 325 and people knew about it.
Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4
“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, batpize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.”
First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61
“…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.’…”
Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1
“…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 Spirit.’…”
On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13
“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”
The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus (a.d. 200-235) chapter 21.12-18
“And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time.”
Epistle to Magnus by Cyprian (a.d. 250) chapter 7
“…But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the same law which the universal church holds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may be objected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed…”
The traditional reading of Matthew 28.19 was alive and well before a.d. 325 and people knew about it.
Good info. MJ. I guess I am just going to have to break down and purchase the CNTTS for a list of all variants (which does not apply to this text since this passage is stable in the MSS translation).
One small caveat—As I’m sure you know, there’s debate about the actual date of the Didache. J.N.D. Kelly et al. list it much later.
I think the actual quote from Hippolytus is strong evidence to the viability of this text though. Excellent info. from Wikipedia (I’m usually leery of this source, unless they footnote their resources).
Much appreciated ๐.
I think this has been a good exercise on why certain Logos resources are important ... even if I took some shortcuts since I was pointing out directions rather than actually invested in the research.
MJ. Smith:I think this has been a good exercise on why certain Logos resources are important ... even if I took some shortcuts since I was pointing out directions rather than actually invested in the research.
Agreed—greatly appreciate the help๐! I really need to beef up my ante-Nicene library.
Ancient translations & quotations fascinate me (this is why I argue for the longer ending of Mark...but that’s another thread๐).
Thanks again!
Hi Pudding:
I can understand certain persons considering Mt 28:19 spurious, and part of the reasoning behind such stance is the whole problem around it.
Internal evidence:
No parallel passages in any of the other Gospels.
No one was ever baptized as per Mt 28:19 in the Bible. All instances of baptism are per Acts 2:38.
"In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is considered to be in liturgical style, a style that was never used by Jesus.
Theological problems: 10 days after the supposed command, Peter gives another formula Acts 2:38. Most believers agree that Peter would not have disobeyed Christ. Additionally, none of the present Apostles raised an objection in the way of: "Yo Pete, that ain't what the Master told us to say/do"
Then you have external evidence:
Supposedly Eusebius warning that Athanasious was changing Scripture (right at the time of fight against Arianism).
Supposedly a copy of the Hebrew Matthew found in an apologetic Jewish book (seems that they got a copy to try to refute it), and the reading there says "baptizing them in my name".
Catholic records of baptism show at the earliest as all baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, but then all of a sudden changed to the trinitarian formula, and no reason given for the change.
Justin Martyr and Didache used as evidence by some, not remembering that extra Biblical evidence is usually not binding on doctrine.
Note something very important:
If there should be no internal contradiction in the Bible, then why Peter disobeyed the supposed command and none of the Apostles objected, why no parallel passages, and more important why no one baptized as so. Liturgical style is extemporaneous to the time.
You get the drift. Better to study more on the subject, and talk to your friend and find out what makes him think that Mt 28:19 is spurious.
If the Bible has no internal contradiction, the extant Matthew Gospel if found will not have the long formula, internal evidence does not support such rendering.
Logos will help you sort the truth, but you need to let go of preconceptions.
True scholars go to where the evidence takes them.
"Jesus, however, can not have given his disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after his resurrection..."
Jackson, S. M. (Ed.). (1908–1914). In The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge: embracing Biblical, historical, doctrinal, and practical theology and Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical biography from the earliest times to the present day (Vol. 1, p. 435). New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls.
For further research, reflection and constructive comment.