Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dost · 10-11-2005, 05:19 PM

Hi there

Do textual critics regard Matthew 28:19, the trinitarian formula within it, to be an interpolation in the text of Matthew? Or is it believed to be a genuine part of Matthew?

Chris Weimer · 10-11-2005, 05:32 PM

Something was there. It doesn't really fit thematically with the rest of Matthew, but the baptizing of all nations does. Perhaps this was Matthew's theological interpretation coming out. I personally think the parts of the ending (and beginning) were a later addition to Matthew, due to ackwardness.

dost · 10-11-2005, 05:39 PM

Hi Chris.

Thanks for your reply. I quickly browsed through Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures, the Alands Text of the NT ... , Ehrman & Metzger's Text of the NT ... (the latest edition of Metzger's classic intro to NT text) and a few other books in my possession and there is no mention of Matthew 28:19 as a later addition to the text. So I am a little confused here, is there supposed to be a difference of opinion among textual critics on this matter? Do any ancient manuscripts lack this passage?

Or do some scholars consider it a later interpolation based on solely literary analysis?

Some books which I have on the historical Jesus subject do discuss this passage, but they treat it as a genuine part of Matthew even though they conclude that the words in question are not those of the historical Jesus.

Chris Weimer · 10-11-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dost

So I am a little confused here, is there supposed to be a difference of opinion among textual critics on this matter? Do any ancient manuscripts lack this passage?

Or do some scholars consider it a later interpolation based on solely literary analysis?

No, all manuscripts which contain this portion have this saying, so it's not a matter of textual criticism with the sources that we have. It was probably added by the last redactor of Matthew, along with a couple of other verses strewn about. I doubt you'll ever find a manuscript not containing the saying, unless it were to date to the second century, but this is improbable.

Quote:

Some books which I have on the historical Jesus subject do discuss this passage, but they treat it as a genuine part of Matthew even though they conclude that the words in question are not those of the historical Jesus.

Of course an historical Jesus wouldn't say such a thing - it contradicts everything else Matthew's Jesus taught. But there is some suggestion in the gospel that Matthew might have thought Jesus on par with God, but the evidence is shaky and can be interpreted in different ways.

dost · 10-11-2005, 06:16 PM

Thanks a lot Chris for the clarification!

John Kesler · 10-11-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dost

Hi there

Do textual critics regard Matthew 28:19, the trinitarian formula within it, to be an interpolation in the text of Matthew? Or is it believed to be a genuine part of Matthew?

As was mentioned, all extant manuscripts of Matthew contain this verse. However, a factor mitigating against its being an authentic saying of Jesus is that no other biblical character baptizes using this formula.

Quote:

Matthew 28:19:
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,

This seems clear enough, so why was baptism done solely in Jesus' name?

Quote:

Acts 2:38:
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven...

Acts 8:14-16:
14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit 16 (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).

Acts 10:47-48a:
47 "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 19:4-5:
4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Never in the Bible is anyone ever said to be baptized in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit despite the fact that Jesus allegedly included this instruction in the "Great Commission."

guy_683930 · 10-12-2005, 10:58 AM

I've seen people use this verse to support the doctrine of the trinity, but it is a very weak argument to do so. The people who do use it never look at the other places in which it is used. There are two other Christian documents in which it is used, The Didache and The Tripartite Tractate, a gnostic text found at Nag Hammadi. Both have the formula, but both have subordination of the son in mind.

Zeichman · 10-12-2005, 11:22 AM

I'd say given Matthew's love of the number three, I wouldn't be suprised if the trinitarian formula was part of the original Matthew.

Aspirin99 · 10-12-2005, 11:54 AM

Could this be an example of Matthew and Luke being unaware of each other's writings?

Chris Weimer · 10-12-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aspirin99

Could this be an example of Matthew and Luke being unaware of each other's writings?

Slightly. There are other more convincing reasons for that.

10-11-2005, 05:19 PM	#1
dost Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London Posts: 82	Matthew 28:19 Hi there Do textual critics regard Matthew 28:19, the trinitarian formula within it, to be an interpolation in the text of Matthew? Or is it believed to be a genuine part of Matthew?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-11-2005, 05:32 PM	#2
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Something was there. It doesn't really fit thematically with the rest of Matthew, but the baptizing of all nations does. Perhaps this was Matthew's theological interpretation coming out. I personally think the parts of the ending (and beginning) were a later addition to Matthew, due to ackwardness.

10-11-2005, 05:39 PM	#3
dost Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London Posts: 82	Hi Chris. Thanks for your reply. I quickly browsed through Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures, the Alands Text of the NT ... , Ehrman & Metzger's Text of the NT ... (the latest edition of Metzger's classic intro to NT text) and a few other books in my possession and there is no mention of Matthew 28:19 as a later addition to the text. So I am a little confused here, is there supposed to be a difference of opinion among textual critics on this matter? Do any ancient manuscripts lack this passage? Or do some scholars consider it a later interpolation based on solely literary analysis? Some books which I have on the historical Jesus subject do discuss this passage, but they treat it as a genuine part of Matthew even though they conclude that the words in question are not those of the historical Jesus.

10-11-2005, 06:16 PM	#5
dost Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London Posts: 82	Thanks a lot Chris for the clarification!

10-12-2005, 10:58 AM	#7
guy_683930 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Southern California Posts: 75	I've seen people use this verse to support the doctrine of the trinity, but it is a very weak argument to do so. The people who do use it never look at the other places in which it is used. There are two other Christian documents in which it is used, The Didache and The Tripartite Tractate, a gnostic text found at Nag Hammadi. Both have the formula, but both have subordination of the son in mind.

10-12-2005, 11:22 AM	#8
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	I'd say given Matthew's love of the number three, I wouldn't be suprised if the trinitarian formula was part of the original Matthew.

10-12-2005, 11:54 AM	#9
Aspirin99 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: TalkingTimeline.com Posts: 151	Could this be an example of Matthew and Luke being unaware of each other's writings?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.