"The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 (in the traditional
form) represents the exact words of Christ." - Article: Baptism; Early Christian.
Dr. Peake - Bible Commentary, page 723
"The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words `baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' we should probably
read simply, `into my name'."
F. Whiteley in `The Testimony' (Oct. 1959, pg 351. `Back to Babylon)
"There is the `triune' baptismal formula, which may prove a very broken reed when thoroughly investigated, but...we leave it for separate treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why
one cannot find one single instance, in Acts or Epistles, of the words ever being used at any of the main baptisms recorded, notwithstanding Christ's (seemingly) explicit command at the end of
Matthew's Gospel."
Williams R.R. - Theological Workbook of the Bible, page 29
"The command to baptize in Matt. 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ. The association of this
Trinitarian conception with baptism suggests that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference."
Dean Stanley - `Christian Institutions'
"Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name...soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only."
E.K. in the Fraternal Visitor - Article: `The Question of the Trinity and Matt. 28:19." 1924, pg 147-151, from Christadelphian Monatshefte.
"The striking contrast and the illogical internal incoherence of the passage...lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interests of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of
certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the passage."
Dr. Robert Young
In his `Literal Translation of the Bible', Young places the triune name in Matthew 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be of doubtful authenticity.
James Martineau - `Seat of Authority'
"The very account which tells us that at last, after His resurrection, He commissioned His disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself."
Black's Bible Dictionary
"The Trinitarian formula (Matt. 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind."
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
"The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula
is a later addition."
Professor Harnack - `History of Dogma' (German Edition)
Professor Harnack dismisses the text almost contemptuously as being `no word of the Lord'."
F. Whiteley in `The Testimony,' footnotes to Article: Baptism, 1958.
"Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that the apostles and epistles never once employ the triune name of Matt. 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing the idea of the Trinity was being resisted by the Church in the fourth century, admits (e.g. Peake) `the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion', but still prior to our oldest yet known manuscripts (Fourth Century). It's sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a proven interpolation. Eusebius (a.d. 264-340) denounces the triune form as spurious, Matthew's actual writing having been baptizing
them `in my name'."
A point to ponder indeed.
"However, it must be remembered that we have no extant (currently known to exist) manuscripts that were written in the first, second or even third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years
between the actual writing of Matthew and our earliest manuscript copies. It must also be remembered that no single manuscript is free from textual error. Some have errors peculiar to themselves, and some whole families of manuscripts 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 manuscripts 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." A Closer Look at Matthew 28:19 Edited by: Mark Kennicott
According to renowned textual critic Dr. C. R. Gregory:
"The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings."
Conybeare:
"In the case just examined (Matt. 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising, for as Dr. C.R. Gregory,
one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us, `The Greek Manuscripts 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.'
(Canon and Text of the N.T. 1907, pg 424).
Yes i had read that scholars doubted that triune, otherwise unknown formula, didn't remember where.
ReplyDelete