@sscott
Forum Replies Created
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2007,18:23) Hello! Eusebius never said that Matt 28:19 was not in the Ancient text! He simply said that the RCH changed there baptismal formula.
Matt 28:19 is “Unambiguous” and is in thousands of the ancient copys.
The following is some info on the subject.
…………………………………………………………………..
Ploughman next shifts to patristic evidence (though in the manner of Mormons, says that this was a time of “rampant apostasy”), beginning with Eusebius. He begins by quoting “the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte” as saying that “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.' ” Now this would be quite helpful and astonishing, if Eusebius really did this; may we see it? Er, no:
Further inquiry has failed to pinpoint the exact compilation referred to, as Ludwig Knupfer, the Editor, has since written, “through events of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with the magazine.” But various authorities mention a work entitled 'Discrepancies in the Gospels,' and another work entitled 'The Concluding Sections of the Gospels.'
Well, isn't that a shame. And poor Nicholas Notovitch also lost all that stuff about Jesus being in India. It's not fair to diss his arguments on that basis! 🙂Such is the inside story; what of the outside story? Here Ploughman thought to have unearthed gold, for he found a study by F. C. Conybeare back in 1902 declaring as follows:
Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio 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 the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.'… 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 his 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 emphasize 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 the nations in my name”.
Impressive? Not really, and this is an excellent example of why textual critics will only give ground when the internal evidence alerts their noses. Conybeare, something of a logocentric apparently, was clearly unaware that quotation methods in antiquity were rather looser than they were even in 1902. Does Matthew 28:19 seems amiss? So does Phil. 2:9, which is also “quoted” above, though not 100% “accurately,” to wit: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…
God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth…
So before one gets too excited, it might be best to, say, do a comparison of how well Eusy and others do their other quotes. As it is Conybeare admits that Eusy did quote the passage “right” in three very late and “controversial” works (why they are “controversial” and how that particularly affects Matt. 28:19 is not stated, but another source claims that their authorship is disputed), which makes the evidence rather equivocal unless we beg the question of a conspiracy to begin with.Other than Eusy, a document titled De Rebaptismate is cited, but it is not clear that it is alluding Matthew or one of the “name of Jesus” only verses, and so hardly constitutes any evidence. Origen is cited as doing this by Conybeare:
In Origen's works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words 'the nations'; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'in my name', struck out.
How this “suggests” any such thing is one of those Scooby Doo mysteries of liberal scholarship, but one might point out that the message to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations”, stopped at just that point, is hardly inappropos for a teacher like Origen, and surely enough served his purposes whereas the rest (whether it was Triune or not) would not necessarily have been useful. It is then noted, “In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows: 'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.'”Well, that is rather interesting, for had Elaine Pagels been around, she'd have slapped Conybeare with a wet noodle for hinting that there was any problem with quoting a Gnostic. As it is, this may or may not be another case of loose quotation. But finally we have the, er, non-evidence of Justin Martyr:
Justin…quotes a saying of Christ…as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19.
Here we are not offered the saying referenced for our own inspection, but are offered a quote where Justin used the “name of Jesus” part only — which as above makes no impact on the authenticity of Matt. 28:19.A reader recently noted that Ploughman apparently missed some probable allusions to this text in patristic writers. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, in Chapter 2 (see here) says, Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost….”. Tertullian, c. 200 AD (see here writes in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: “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.” and in Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, “After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”. Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.–Against the Heresy of One Noetus, “gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian says, And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, “All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” and alludes to the same passage in other places as well. Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII (see here says, “….the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?” There are several other allusions from anonymous works which we will not include.From here we are given the opinions of people as late as the seventh century, and a long list of opinions that the verse is a forgery, which makes it clear we are scraping barrel bottom. Indeed, these opinions take up far more space than the data offered, which tells us enough of what sort of case Ploughman actually had.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/matt2819.html
…………………………………………………………………………
Believe the scriptures! Jesus and the Apostles did!
If that is the “baptismal formula” then why is every instance of baptism in acts done in “Jesus Name” and not in the trinitarian formula that most churches do?
