Bible Study Is Matthew 28:19 a scribal addition?

[JohnD]

Matthew 28:19 (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Chances are likely that this text is a scribal addition by a foolish (if well meaning person):

1 John 5:7 (KJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The Triune nature of the one true God is evident throughout the Bible. But, scribes (copyists) who want to help God out a little at times do the unthinkable (add to the Bible). God doesn't need our help, first of all. And secondly the confusion if not contradiction this could place in a possible convert's mind (not to mention fuel for antagonists) is reprehensible.

I have used the text many times witnessing to unbelievers and cultists who deny the triune nature of God. But was it a Romanized text?

I am not fully convinced it is, but until I am convinced one way or the other, I shall not use it to convince anyone it is a proof text for the Trinity. There are many others, not to worry, and in one sense they are better than a pat answer (one that is handed to us in a bow) the others take study and research into the scriptures with comparisons of texts which I rather think is the point God is making. Pat answers often produce shall understandings / comprehensions.

Many today do not realize the blow Rome dealt Christianity in the name of legalization, eventual hijacking and religion building not only for the state of Rome but the eventual embodiment of Rome (which morphed into a religion). And the Protestant denominations did not reform nearly enough (bringing with them many Roman doctrines and traditions the traditions of men).

I suggested Christ was not actually in Christmas to folks where I live who sport the bumper sticker that claim he was, and these Protestants came after me with all but pitchforks. The Bible suggests September / October. December is not the time of shepherds watching over their flocks out in the field by night.

"What difference does it make?" some ask.

Jesus is either Truth or untruth. He is Truth. So why would we feel comfortable aligning untruth with him?

And what sort of testimony is it to the cockeyed sinful world when we say he is Truth and most of what is taught about him is true...?

Who doesn't adore a family holiday? Krissmiss is a great family holiday so long as we don't try to align it with the Savior. Pagans and atheists and secularists all observe krisssmiss so long as it is not Christ Mass...

Not to mention the lie people tell about Santa Claus.

What must children think when we are told how much Jesus loves us and was born on December 25, 01 and Santa Claus is real... when they find out they were lied to about Santa...

An atheist once made the point "Santa is fake and Jesus is real?"

There is only one way to get to the Truth and what God revealed about himself and all things according to him... get back to the Bible as the authority and dump the traditions of men and reveal where man (if man) tampered with the sacred word of God.

 

[Deborah13]

Hey JohnD good to hear from you.

I agree with all that you said.
Besides it is much more interesting and exciting, at least to me, to learn that the Messiah was actually born in the context, not sure that's the right word to use, of the Feasts.
I think of Him coming to Tabernacle with us.

 

[JohnD]

Very observant, Miss Deborah. John 1:14 in the Greek says he tabernacled among us.

 

[Malachi]

Matthew 28:19 (KJV) 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Chances are likely that this text is a scribal addition by a foolish (if well meaning person):

JohnD,
I don't know where you might have gotten this misinformation from. Both the Textus Receptus (KJV) as well as the Nestle and Westcott & Hort Texts (modern versions) have this Scripture, and it is identical in both the Majority and Minority Texts. So it is definitely not a scribal addition, and there is certainly nothing foolish in this verse.

1 John 5:7 (KJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This verse is in the Textus Receptus, but has been truncated in the Nestle and Westcott & Hort Texts, therefore the modern versions read "For there are three that testify..."(NIV) which makes no sense, and because it made no sense, "in earth" was removed from verse eight. The contrast is clear in the TR and the AV -- three witnesses in Heaven and three witnesses on earth. This testimony has been expunged.

Although, for whatever reason, the complete verse is missing from the majority of the Greek manuscripts, there is sufficient manuscript evidence to establish its aunthenticity. It is also found in the Latin Vulgate, which is a strong evidence of its authenticity -- quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus. Et hi tres unum sunt. The Patristic testimony (early Christian writings) for the complete verse is quite strong, but we won't go into details here.

We should always keep in mind that there was a deliberate attempt to mutiliate the text by the Gnostics, and the Minority Text (W&H) is actually the corrupted text. Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly) the good has been declared evil, and the evil good.

 

[JohnD]

Well, the challenges to the validity of the text (Matthew 28:19) include the fact that none of the apostles baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

The case could also be made that they often prayed and did not include "in Jesus' name" when they prayed... which I would argue was their understanding that Jesus was not making his name a magic mantra but the purposefulness of the prayer itself... AND as a believer in Jesus all prayers could be said to be in his name.

As I said... I am not convinced either way about the text... yet I have some studying and praying to do first.

The foolishness I mentioned btw was not in the text but in the presumption a mere mortal could help God by sprucing up the text...

 

[Chopper]

JohnD and Malachi, thank you both for two sides of the textual issue. This should be a very important subject of comment and teaching of the Truth. Please be careful how you word your comments so that an argument thru debating does not happen which is not allowed in this forum....I'm a little excited about the fact that in this particular thread, I for one am looking to be educated. And, if this is approached with the idea of biblical as well as human research material, it will be instructional.

Thank you JohnD for the courage to start this thread's topic. For everyone who eventually will join in this subject, lets keep it fun, informative, full of study and enjoyable for all. Even though I personally moderate this Forum, I don't want to, have to, delete objectionable material.

 

[Malachi]

Well, the challenges to the validity of the text (Matthew 28:19) include the fact that none of the apostles baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

All we can say after going through the NT is that "there is no Scriptural record of the apostles baptizing in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". That does not automatically prove that they neglected to do so. All it tells us is that the Holy Spirit saw fit not to record that statement each time there was a baptism (and there were thousands).

What we do have is the statement in Acts 8:16 "...only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus". Should we conclude that Philip was disregarding the commandment to baptize as given in Mt 28:19? Or should we conclude that this was merely "shorthand" which corresponds with Acts 8:12 "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women"?

Two things should be perfectly clear:

1. the Holy Spirit does not necessarily repeat Himself, and what is written in the four Gospels regarding the final instructions of Christ all vary, and should be harmonized and integrated; and

2, there is absolutely no possibility that the apostles would disregard any of the commandments of Christ, therefore we can safely conclude that Mt 28:19 was binding on all the apostles and the apostolic churches, and is still binding on us today. The "end of the age" ["world" Mt 28:20] is still future, and the Day of Grace is still current. Today, Christians must still be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Brother Mike]

Well, the challenges to the validity of the text (Matthew 28:19) include the fact that none of the apostles baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

The case could also be made that they often prayed and did not include "in Jesus' name" when they prayed... which I would argue was their understanding that Jesus was not making his name a magic mantra but the purposefulness of the prayer itself... AND as a believer in Jesus all prayers could be said to be in his name.

As I said... I am not convinced either way about the text... yet I have some studying and praying to do first.

The foolishness I mentioned btw was not in the text but in the presumption a mere mortal could help God by sprucing up the text...

Jerome used the Text, What Jerome did not have was 1 John 5:7

That text was most definitly added.

The thing is, the only persons Jesus baptisted where is Disciples. There is zero mention of His disciples baptising anyone.

Joh 4:1-2 kjva 1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

The disciples always talked about John Baptizing in their writings. John said Jesus would not baptize in water, but in fire and power of the Holy Ghost.

The disciples always baptisted in the name of Jesus, and always with the power of the Holy Spirit, tongues following.

The Holy Spirit only testifies of the Lord Jesus, and does not speak on his own. There would be no reason to baptise under His name at all.

I suspect Rome, somewhere down the line might have thrown that verse in there. It matches nothing else in scriptures, Nor does it make any sense to Baptise someone in the name of the Father, since Jesus is the Father of eternity, or eternal life. The First raised from the dead, and the FAther put all things under Him.

I do Know Jerome had the scipture though, it's in the vulgate.

 

[Deborah13]

While researching again about 1John 5:7, I found some very interesting Jewish writings that relate to Trinity. I will just put the link here as it is not directly about this topic. See under the notes on 5:7.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/1_john/5.htm

 

[Brother Mike]

While researching again about 1John 5:7, I found some very interesting Jewish writings that relate to Trinity. I will just put the link here as it is not directly about this topic. See under the notes on 5:7.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/1_john/5.htm

I read through it. I have all his stuff in my bible program. What Trinity Doctrine you think He is touching on?

He goes into a long thing about 1 John 5:7. It was found in only two manuscripts, and one of them many believed was drummed up as Ersimus wanted a least one more before putting it in his 3rd edition in 1522. Many years later after the Trinity Doctrine was formed.

If Rome had 1 John 5:7 much eariler, trust me, they would have used it long before it came abroad in the 1500's.

James Strong felt it was a fake, and did not buy into Romes Trinity Doctrine, Despite being Methodist himself. So did Ersimus who wrote the Accepcted Greek Text we use.

Good enough for me. I don't trust anything that came out of Rome.

Remember, Rome does not believe in sola Scriptura. Anything they add as offical is cannon to them, and should be to everyone else as the True Church.

 

[Deborah13]

I read through it. I have all his stuff in my bible program. What Trinity Doctrine you think He is touching on?

He goes into a long thing about 1 John 5:7. It was found in only two manuscripts, and one of them many believed was drummed up as Ersimus wanted a least one more before putting it in his 3rd edition in 1522. Many years later after the Trinity Doctrine was formed.

If Rome had 1 John 5:7 much eariler, trust me, they would have used it long before it came abroad in the 1500's.

James Strong felt it was a fake, and did not buy into Romes Trinity Doctrine, Despite being Methodist himself. So did Ersimus who wrote the Accepcted Greek Text we use.

Good enough for me. I don't trust anything that came out of Rome.

Remember, Rome does not believe in sola Scriptura. Anything they add as offical is cannon to them, and should be to everyone else as the True Church.

Frankly I was more interested in the Jewish writings and their thinking about one and one and one being one. The triangle with three points but all connected as one. But this thread is not about the Trinity.
I think Gill believed that 1 John 5:7-8 should be there.
Adam Clarke did not because of it not being in so many of the ancient MSs. Young included it in italics, so he was convinced that it shouldn't be there. He designates it as being added.
YLT
1Jn 5:7 because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these--the three--are one;
1Jn 5:8 and three are who are testifying in the earth , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

As far as Matthew 28:19-20, Young puts part of it in question as to be there by putting it in ( ).

Mat 28:19 having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them--to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days--till the full end of the age.'

 

[Brother Mike]

Frankly I was more interested in the Jewish writings and their thinking about one and one and one being one. The triangle with three points but all connected as one. But this thread is not about the Trinity.
I think Gill believed that 1 John 5:7-8 should be there.
Adam Clarke did not because of it not being in so many of the ancient MSs. Young included it in italics, so he was convinced that it shouldn't be there. He designates it as being added.
YLT
1Jn 5:7 because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these--the three--are one;
1Jn 5:8 and three are who are testifying in the earth , the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

As far as Matthew 28:19-20, Young puts part of it in question as to be there by putting it in ( ).

Mat 28:19 having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them--to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days--till the full end of the age.'

The scirpture does not change anything. Jesus said he is one wth the FAther, also said we are one in him.

Husband and wife are one flesh, a mystery.

As for Matt 28:19. It does not match anything remotely correct, and the Holy Spirit certianly would not take credit for anything Jesus had done, He testifies of Jesus, so He certianly would not have men write to baptise in His name.

The Holy Spirit said he does not speak of his own. He would not have that written in there. Rome would though.

Same with this one goes out but by prayer and fasting. A proven fake added in One gosepl to match the other fake. Devils don't do a darn thing by starving yourself.

More help from Rome.

 

[Malachi]

Jerome used the Text, What Jerome did not have was 1 John 5:7. That text was most definitly added.

How could Jerome place that verse in the Vulgate (c.400 AD) if "he did not have it"? I do not believe that anyone would accuse Jerome of simply emending the NT text. He even resisted inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Vulgate (knowing that that was not Scripture), but gave in to pope Damasus because of "political" pressure. So Jerome did not simply add to Scripture as you are suggesting.

When you say "that was most definitely added", it would appear that you would like its absence to support your position, rather than objectively decide whether or not the Johanine Comma is genuine. Unless you yourself have actually researched the manuscripts personally, and are a textual scholar, you cannot make such a statement. And even the textual scholars who had very definite biases, could not be relied upon to give us the truth of the matter.

Are you familar with F. H. A. Scrivener, and do you know that he was considered the leading textual scholar of the 19th century? Indeed he wrote the textbook on Textual Criticism, and I have a reprint of it. Scrivener (for his own reasons) was biased against fully accepting 1 Jn 5:7 as genuine Scripture. But he was also fair enough to point out that Cyprian (c.250 AD) read that verse in his own copy of 1 John.

...but I cannot thus dispose of his junior Cyprian (d. 258). One must say with Tischendorf (who, however, manages to explain away his testimony)“gravissimus est Cyprianus de eccles. unitate 5.” His words run,“Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt.” And yet further, in his Epistle to Jubaianus (73) on heretical baptism: “Si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit,—si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est, quaero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si Christi, nec hujus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?” If these two passages be taken together (the first is manifestly much the stronger445), it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi],...

If Cyprian read this verse in his copy, why should we doubt that Jerome did also? Athanasius, Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Vigilus of Thapsus, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Victor Vitensis, Eugenius of Carthage, and possibly Tertullian all read this passage in their Scriptures, according to Scrivener (who personally researched manuscripts and documents, and was quite at home with Hebrew, Greek, and Latin).

Notice above, that Scrivener points out that Tischendorf (another textual scholar, but one who promoted corrupt Greek manuscripts) attempts to "explain away" the testimony of Cyprian. Sadly, Scrivener did not come out on the side of the autheniticity of this verse, even though he listed all the places where the Johanine Comma was used to support the doctrine of the Trinity. Scrivener's research is quite extensive and cannot be added here. But Christians should have no doubt that 1 John 5:7 is the Word of God, and that is why it is present in the Textus Receptus as well as the Authorized Version.

 

[Brother Mike]

How could Jerome place that verse in the Vulgate (c.400 AD) if "he did not have it"? I do not believe that anyone would accuse Jerome of simply emending the NT text. He even resisted inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Vulgate (knowing that that was not Scripture), but gave in to pope Damasus because of "political" pressure. So Jerome did not simply add to Scripture as you are suggesting.

When you say "that was most definitely added", it would appear that you would like its absence to support your position, rather than objectively decide whether or not the Johanine Comma is genuine. Unless you yourself have actually researched the manuscripts personally, and are a textual scholar, you cannot make such a statement. And even the textual scholars who had very definite biases, could not be relied upon to give us the truth of the matter.

What are you on about Malachi? I could care less if 1 John 5:7 is there or not. The comma did not show up until much later. It's a fake. It does not change the Word any, and it was only included in the Textus 3rd edition not because Esermius wanted to included it. He rejected it. He included it to keep the peace. Not my words His Words.

So, had it been actual scripture, it would have been in the 2nd edition of the Receptus, but nobody knew about then.

Most Modern Bible translators know the scripture is a forgery.

I also never said Jerome added anything. I am not sure how you came up with that, but I never mentioned it, or suggested it.

 

[Malachi]

Mike,

You continue to insist that 1 John 5:7 is a "fake" and a "forgery" in the face of clear evidence that it is genuine Scripture. John Gill's commentary was reference above, and had you taken the time to read it you would have discovered:

...and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius (z), in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius (a) about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian (b), in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian (c) about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.

In view of this are you prepared to withdraw your "fake" and "forgery" labels? This does not simple affect you, but anyone who may not be very knowledgeable, and may accept your accusations against this verse at face value.

 

[jasonc]

Very observant, Miss Deborah. John 1:14 in the Greek says he tabernacled among us.

whenever the word tabernacle is used its used In the context of dwelling place. ie a tent of those days.we would say a home.

 

[AirDancer]

Reminder: This thread is in Bible Study forum, which is a non-debate forum.

Chopper earlier encouraged keeping this thread informative and inter-active without personal & snarky remarks. Let's keep it that way.

 

[Deborah13]

Mike,

You continue to insist that 1 John 5:7 is a "fake" and a "forgery" in the face of clear evidence that it is genuine Scripture. John Gill's commentary was reference above, and had you taken the time to read it you would have discovered:



In view of this are you prepared to withdraw your "fake" and "forgery" labels? This does not simple affect you, but anyone who may not be very knowledgeable, and may accept your accusations against this verse at face value.

Here's Adam Clarke, who had in his own possession ancient MS and access to many others.

"But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.

It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.

The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following: -

"1 John 5:6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth.
1 John 5:7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.
1 John 5:9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, etc."

The words that are omitted by all the MSS., the above excepted, and all the versions, the Vulgate excepted, are these: -
[In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three which bear witness in earth]...........
Any man may see, on examining the words, that if those included in brackets, which are wanting in the MSS. and versions, be omitted, there is no want of connection; and as to the sense, it is complete and perfect without them; and, indeed much more so than with them. I shall conclude this part of the note by observing, with Dr. Dodd, "that there are some internal and accidental marks which may render the passage suspected; for the sense is complete, and indeed more clear and better preserved, without it. Besides, the Spirit is mentioned, both as a witness in heaven and on earth; so that the six witnesses are thereby reduced to five, and the equality of number, or antithesis between the witnesses in heaven and on earth, is quite taken away. Besides, what need of witnesses in heaven? No one there doubts that Jesus is the Messiah; and if it be said that Father, Son, and Spirit are witnesses on earth, then there are five witnesses on earth, and none in heaven; not to say that there is a little difficulty in interpreting how the Word or the Son can be a witness to himself.""

He goes on with more evidence of what appears in the first English Bibles printed, they all put those words in brackets. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/1_john/5.htm

 

[Brother Mike]

Mike,

You continue to insist that 1 John 5:7 is a "fake" and a "forgery" in the face of clear evidence that it is genuine Scripture. John Gill's commentary was reference above, and had you taken the time to read it you would have discovered:



In view of this are you prepared to withdraw your "fake" and "forgery" labels? This does not simple affect you, but anyone who may not be very knowledgeable, and may accept your accusations against this verse at face value.

Malachi. Let's keep it in the real. The comma shows up, a perfect copy of 1 John, right when there is a major trinity war debate.

Esermasus who we get the accepted text from says its a forgery, not going to add it to his 3rd edition text.

Rome screams bloody murder, you better add it.

So, he says find one more document that matches it.

BAM!!!! Magic happens, something called M14 or something shows up just in time.

Not buying it, nor did a whole lot of other bible scholars.

The scripture in 1 John 5:7 means nothing anyway. There is nothing it does that is not seen in the Word.

Jesus said I am one with the Father.
Jesus said we are one in him. (Don't make us Father though)
Husband and wife one flesh.

When scripture uses one in something it always refers to being on the same boat, plan, on one accord. Never that one of something means something magicaly is no longer two.

Trinity Doctrine came out in 325ad.

1 John 5:7 came almost 1,200 years later. There is no recorded mention of the comma until Eseramus time. NONE. That would be 1522.

Now you have folks who claim it's always been around, but if that was the case, it would have been mentioned long before the Trinity doctrine was formed and much, much sooner before it became debated in the 1500's.

Not buying it, Nor do many other noteable scholars buy into it.

James Strong who was methodist did not find the Trinity doctrine to be true. Now if someone would know, it would be him.

His definiton of Theos is a deity of uncertain origin. without the title it can be anyone.

Joseph Henery also Methodist (Thayer Greek) said Theos is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Don't buy into everything you read. I only use the KJV to study out of, but I am not ignorant of where it was infulenced and what major debate was going on the time it was written.

 

[Brother Mike]

JohnD and Malachi, thank you both for two sides of the textual issue. This should be a very important subject of comment and teaching of the Truth. Please be careful how you word your comments so that an argument thru debating does not happen which is not allowed in this forum....I'm a little excited about the fact that in this particular thread, I for one am looking to be educated. And, if this is approached with the idea of biblical as well as human research material, it will be instructional.

Thank you JohnD for the courage to start this thread's topic. For everyone who eventually will join in this subject, lets keep it fun, informative, full of study and enjoyable for all. Even though I personally moderate this Forum, I don't want to, have to, delete objectionable material.

I did make a thread about the Original and real Trinity Doctrine. IN that thread we can debate.

Sadly, it's ended up into a complicated deep mess about something else.

I am not against the True and original Trinity Doctrine. I don't see where it errors execpt the part at the end about having to be Roman Cathloic