Matt 28:19 Fraud
|
|
|
|
A Collection of the evidence for and against the traditional wording
of the baptismal phrase
in Matthew 28:19
Headings Of Chapters 1.) Introduction So arranged that the reader may judge for himself which phrase was written by Matthew: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" or "in my name"? Second edition with addendum "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you (Deuteronomy 4:2). FOREWORD: The importance of this subject is shown in the last chapter of this pamphlet. In more than fifty years as a student of the Bible, and an enquirerer in the sphere of Biblical knowledge, I have not seen or heard of anything dealing with this question of the authenticity of the text of Matthew 28:19, apart from articles and letters in periodicals and books, now out of print and encyclopedias (inaccessible to most people). This collection is concerned with the ACTUAL TEXT of scriptures, and not with any teaching arising as a result (though the aspect of teaching will of necessity arise when we consider the INTERNAL EVIDENCE as to the genuineness of the text). Teaching is based on the text of scripture: this collection of Evidence is concerned with the text. January 1, 1962 Morris E. Wise, Author * * *
"Every word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5)." David wrote: "Through thy precepts I get understanding, therefore I hate every false way Psalms 119:104)." Note the force of the word "therefore"! If as David,we love God's Word,we shall,as he, hate spurious scripture (see also Jeremiah 15:19; Ezekiel 22:26; 44:23). Many have had difficulty concerning the phraseology of Matthew 28:19, and have written to editors and periodicals. Most of the editors wrapped up the difficulty with words, phrases, ideas, expositions and exhortations, all of which are good in their proper place, but not as wrapping to hide away the difficulty. A glowing exception to the general rule was that of Dr. Thomas. A letter from J.R. Lithgow on this subject and dated 28th May, 1855, (published in "THE HERALD," October 1855) remained unanswered for a long time. We do well not to rush for the possible "explanation." It is now known, and without the slightest uncertainty, that the verses at 1John 5:7-8 in the AV & KJV contain spurious scripture: "Until the middle of the nineteenth century the text of the three witnesses 1John 5:7-8 shared with Matthew 28:19 the onerous task of furnishing scriptural evidence of the Trinity. ...(the spurious words) are now abandoned by all authorities except the Pope of Rome. By consequence the entire weight of proving the Trinity has of late come to rest on Matthew 28:19 (F.C. Conybeare)." But is the name-phrase in Matthew 28:19 likewise spurious, or is it genuine? Let the reader judge after examining the evidence.
2.) On Textual Criticism Generally The EVIDENCE here presented will be of four kinds: 1.) MSS "The text of the New Testament rests upon the combined testimony of streams of documentary evidence--extant Mss, of the Greek original, ancient versions, and "patristic" quotations, i.e. passages cited by a succession of ancient Christian writers known as "The Fathers." Concerning the MSS: "The autographs of the New Testament Scriptures were probably lost within a few years after they were written. No early Christian writer appeals to them as still existing, ...men could not anticipate their importance to posterity." Concerning the Versions: "Next in importance to the MSS, channels for the transmission of the text of the Greek Testament, must be placed the ancient Versions, which were made from the Greek manuscripts, in most cases older than any which we now possess. The old Latin and Syriac Versions belong to the second century, and carry us back to the lifetime of some of the immediate successors of the Apostles." Concerning the Patristic writings: "So extensive are the quotations of the New Testament in the Greek and Latin Christian writers of the first five centuries that it would have been possible, in the event of all the MSS. of the Cannon having perished, to recover nearly the whole of the text from this source alone, ...there remains a large number of instances in which patristic authority goes far to turn the scale in favor of a disputed reading, or against it." As to Matthew 28:19: "The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says--It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism." (Author's note: The presence of the word *baptising* in Matthew 28:19 is also disputed, but we are not now concerned with this point: many other passages uphold the truth concerning Baptism). Whether or not the name-phrase of Matthew 28:19 is genuine or spurious can be decided only by the evidence of the MSS., of the versions, of the Patristic Writings, and by what is styled INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Let us therefore consider the evidence of the MSS.
For the threefold name: Against the threefold name: BUT-- It must be remembered that no single MS. is free from textual error. Some have errors peculiar to themselves, and some have whole families of MSS. have the same errors. The textual critic aims to reproduce from an examination of all the evidence what was probably the original words. But from the facts stated, it is within possibility that all the existing MSS. may have one or more textual errors in common. That fact must be admitted, however reluctantly. Another fact that we have to face is that during that time-gap of three hundred years false teaching thrived and developed into the Great Apostasy. Moreover--"The Greek MSS. of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them,and which they held to be the right readings (Dr. C. R. Gregory, one of the greatest textual critics)." But this aspect is dealt with in a later chapter. Another writer has this to say: "A great step forward is taken when we propose to allow MSS. weight, not according to their age, but according to the age of the text which they contain. To Tregelles must be ascribed the honour of introducing this method of procedure, which he appropriately called "Comparative Criticism." It is a truly scientific method, and leads us for the first time to safe results. ...But a little consideration will satisfy us that as an engine of criticism,this method is far from perfect. It will furnish us with a text that is demonstrably ancient, and this, as a step towards the true text, is a very important gain. It is something to reach a text that is certainly in the third or the second century. But this can be assumed to be the autographic text ONLY. If we can demonstrate that the text current in the second or third century was an absolutely pure text. So far from this, however, there is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century. ...If our touchstone only reveals to us texts that are ancient, we cannot hope to obtain for our result anything but an ancient text. What we wish however, is not merely an ancient but the true text." Of course, when he speaks of "grossest errors" the writer is not speaking of errors of teaching, but, as a textual critic, of errors int he text itself. The subject of the corruption of the text of Scripture concurrently with the corruption of teaching in the apostate churches is dealt with in a later chapter. Before reaching any decision, let the reader consider the evidence of the Versions, as some of them are earlier than any of the MSS. But first let us see what happened to the ancient MSS.
4.) What Happened To The Earliest MSS? Why have we no copies of the Scriptures written earlier than the 5th century (except for the two which were written in the 4th century)? The following quotation will supply the answer: "Diocletian in 303AD ordered all the sacred books to be burnt, ...but enough survived to transmit the text (Swete in Variorum "Aids")." "One of the reasons why no early MSS. have been discovered is that they were, when found, burned by the persecutors of the Christians: Eusebius writes: "I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razzed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place (H.E. viii 2.)." "Among such senses he could not fail to learn what books men held to be more precious that their lives (Dr. Westcott: General Survey of the History of the Canon of the N.T., p. 383)."
For the threefold name: BUT--"In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional form, though it must be remembered that the African old Latin and of the old Syriac versions are 'defective at this point' (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics). Again, ...In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading,namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are GONE which contained the end of Matthew (F.C. Conybeare)." So that we have no MS. earlier than the 4th century, and in the case of these two earlier versions the end page of Matthew has been destroyed? In these circumstances we must turn to the early quotations,styled the "Patristic Writings" and examine their evidence, to see how they quoted Matthew 28:19, and this we will proceed to do.
6.) The Evidence Of the Early Writers "In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic evidence against it,so weighty that in future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the three witnesses (F.C. Conybeare in Hibbert Journal)." How true is this? What are the facts? While no MS. of the first three centuries is inexistence, we do have the writings of at least two men who did actually possess, or had access to MSS. much earlier than our earliest now in existence. And there were others who quoted the passage of Matthew 28:19 in those early times. Who were these men? When did they write? Has they access to very early MSS.? Were they reliable and exact? How did they quote Matthew 28:19? These are the questions that must be answered. It is proposed to being forward evidence from the following,either to direct quotation form their writings, or indirectly through the writings of their contemporaries, viz. Eusebius of Caesarea, the unknown author of De Rebaptismate, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Justin martyr, Macedonius, Eunomius and Aphraates. BUT FIRST A CLARIFICATION--Let it be stated emphatically, that if the question under consideration were one of theology, the evidence of these "Fathers" would be of no value whatever. Our doctrine must be obtained from the pure Word of God alone, and not from any other source. These so-called "Fathers" lived in an age of theological darkness, and when we have the light of Scripture it is folly to search among the dim candle-lit darkness of the theologians. Our concern is to find out what Matthew wrote at the end of his book. Before dealing with the other writers, let us examine Eusebius as to his integrity and reliability as a witness, seeing that in this enquiry he is a key witness.
Having introduced the first witness, it is time to ascertain what he wrote concerning the text of Matthew 28:19. According to Mr. Knupfer, the Editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and *the most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19.* Persistent enquiry has failed to trace the compilation referred to, and Knupfer, the Editor, has left his last Canadian address without trace. But various authorities mention a work entitled: *DISCREPANCIES IN THE GOSPELS or QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS ON SOME POINTS IN THE GOSPEL HISTORY* and another work on THE CONCLUDING SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS. According to Conybeare: "Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336AD, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstration Evangelica, his Theophany, ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: *Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.*" Conybeare continues: "I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena published by Mai in a German Magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901. And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words *in my name*. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col 240, p.136): *For he did not enjoin them "to make disciples of all the nations" simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition "in his name." For so great was the virtue attaching to this appellation that the Apostle says: *God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.* It was right therefore that he should emphasise the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles: *GO YE, AND MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS IN MY NAME.*" Conybeare proceeds: (In Hibbert Journal, 1902): "It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text, he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in tow controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled: *Against Marcellus of Ancyra,* and the other *About The Theology Of The Church,* he used the common reading after Nice. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his see of Caesarea." In his TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Conybeare writes: "It is clear, therefore, that the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original writing, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of the words *Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.* It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Professor Harnak (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text (Textus Receptus), could not contain the very words of Jesus--this long before anyone except Dr, Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the original writing." An objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, ...*who argues that Eusebius found the Textus Receptus (traditional text) in his manuscripts, but substituted the shorter formula in his works for fear of vulgarising and divulging the sacred trinitarian formula.* It is interesting to find a modern Bishop reviving the very argument used 150 years before, in support of the forged text of 1John 5:7. Porson in his preface to his Letters, writes: Bengel allowed that the words (the three witnesses) were in no genuine MS. ...Surely, then, the verse is spurious! No, this learned man finds a way of escape. The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost. Under what a want of evidence must a critic labour who resorts to such and argument!" Conybeare continues here to refute the argument of the Bishop of Ely: *It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusibius's argument, when he cites the text, involves the text "in my name." For, he asks, in whose name? and answers that it was the name spoken by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10.* The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics states: "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one times, either omitting everything between "nations" "and teaching," or in the form "make disciples of all nations *in my name,* the latter form being the more frequent." Now let us look at other early writers who quoted Matthew 28:19. |
Send mail to
prayerline@acjc.org with
questions or comments about this web site.
|