Hi – can anyone help me?
I have a sense of uneasiness about the reliability of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Yet, there are virtually no textual discussions on the matter (including Metzger) for the simple reason that all the oldest manuscripts seem to be in agreement of the full triadic formula + with you until the end (although the “amen” seems to be a subsequent layer, mostly removed).
Am I correct in thinking that the first MSS evidence of this verse is in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
I am also aware of the counter arguments of the quotations made by Eusebius – I would be curious to hear your views on the strength of this counter argument.
Finally, does anyone know approximately what percentage of the NT is only covered from these complete manuscripts onwards? (Hope that makes sense)
Thanks in advance!
John
jbjbjbjbjb said
Hi – can anyone help me?I have a sense of uneasiness about the reliability of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Yet, there are virtually no textual discussions on the matter (including Metzger) for the simple reason that all the oldest manuscripts seem to be in agreement of the full triadic formula + with you until the end (although the “amen” seems to be a subsequent layer, mostly removed).
Am I correct in thinking that the first MSS evidence of this verse is in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
I am also aware of the counter arguments of the quotations made by Eusebius – I would be curious to hear your views on the strength of this counter argument.
Finally, does anyone know approximately what percentage of the NT is only covered from these complete manuscripts onwards? (Hope that makes sense)
Thanks in advance!
John
Didache, usually dated to the first part of the second cent., perhaps early sec. cent., has a similar formula : “Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water”.
The ending verses of Matthew is at odds with Matthew 15:24-26, so this indicates that the ending is an editorial addition made at least a generation or so after the first edition of Matthew. According to G. Vermes, even the terms used are unique within the NT.
Thanks!
In the meantime I also came across the Didache reference. For me, because of its much earlier dating I came round to consider that maybe this trinitarian (small t, plural referring) concept was indeed present in the mathean gospel, as liturgical as it might sound. Are you saying that Vermes is arguing that the original didn’t have it, that it emerged in the didache or didache source tradition and practices pretty quickly and was copied into Matthew? I guess it is possible, although I would need to more clearly understand why it would be that way around.
I do not understand how Matthew 15:24-26 is “at odds” with the ending verses of Matthew.
Great to engage with you on this, thanks!
J
jbjbjbjbjb said
Thanks!In the meantime I also came across the Didache reference. For me, because of its much earlier dating I came round to consider that maybe this trinitarian (small t, plural referring) concept was indeed present in the mathean gospel, as liturgical as it might sound. Are you saying that Vermes is arguing that the original didn’t have it, that it emerged in the didache or didache source tradition and practices pretty quickly and was copied into Matthew? I guess it is possible, although I would need to more clearly understand why it would be that way around.
I do not understand how Matthew 15:24-26 is “at odds” with the ending verses of Matthew.
Great to engage with you on this, thanks!
J
That depends on your confessional position: if you believe that Jesus consciously preached to Jews only, during his earthly life, foreseeing his own death death and mission to gentiles thereafter, then there is not necessarily any logical contradiction. But most secular scholars think that the endeavor to bring the Gospel to the gentile world after his death, is secondary to Jesus’ message. Someone else than Jesus himself has added the Great Commission. It is hard to believe that a preacher would hide his long-term thinking about salvation for mankind to his nearest collaborators (like in Matthew , and make declarations like 15:27, viewing gentiles like dogs). “Pearls for swine”, is a similar and probably authentic Jesus-assertion about wasting the Word on non-Jews.
My source on the Vermes judgment is his book “The authentic gospel of Jesus”, see his comments on the M tradition. Another problematic claim is “All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to me”, which is rather different from Matthew 9:1-8.
The idea that Jesus came back with second thoughts after his death, does not fit in with common sense.
jbjbjbjbjb said
Hi – can anyone help me?I have a sense of uneasiness about the reliability of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Yet, there are virtually no textual discussions on the matter (including Metzger) for the simple reason that all the oldest manuscripts seem to be in agreement of the full triadic formula + with you until the end (although the “amen” seems to be a subsequent layer, mostly removed).
If you do believe in the reliability of Matthew 28:19 as an authentic text, than you would have to admit that the disciples are disobeying Christ.
Now let us compare:
Matthew 28:19 King James Version (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:
Now notice the order is clear within the above verse. It doesn’t mention that one can baptize SOMETIMES in the name of Jesus or the trinity. But a clear and unequivocal ORDER to baptize them using this EXACT formula. Contrast this with the following verses from Acts:
Acts 2:38 King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:12 King James Version (KJV)
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.
Acts 8:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 10:48 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.Then they invited him to stay for several days.
Acts 19:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Notice there is not a SINGLE occurrence of baptism actually being performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost despite the so-called order being given in in Matthew 28:19.
To conclude, if one believes that Matthew 28:19 is ORIGINAL to the text (and not a fabrication), they would have no choice but to believe that the disciples were disobeying the last words and orders from Jesus Christ.
gavriel said
jbjbjbjbjb said
Hi – can anyone help me?I have a sense of uneasiness about the reliability of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Yet, there are virtually no textual discussions on the matter (including Metzger) for the simple reason that all the oldest manuscripts seem to be in agreement of the full triadic formula + with you until the end (although the “amen” seems to be a subsequent layer, mostly removed).
Am I correct in thinking that the first MSS evidence of this verse is in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
I am also aware of the counter arguments of the quotations made by Eusebius – I would be curious to hear your views on the strength of this counter argument.
Finally, does anyone know approximately what percentage of the NT is only covered from these complete manuscripts onwards? (Hope that makes sense)
Thanks in advance!
John
Didache, usually dated to the first part of the second cent., perhaps early sec. cent., has a similar formula : “Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water”.
The ending verses of Matthew is at odds with Matthew 15:24-26, so this indicates that the ending is an editorial addition made at least a generation or so after the first edition of Matthew. According to G. Vermes, even the terms used are unique within the NT.
Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is talking about the world wide preaching work including teaching the disciples and baptism by immersion so they can become an ordained minister.
All early baptised true Christians were ordained ministers in the first century
There was no paid clergy until the rise of the hierarchy after the death of the apostles.
truthseekerofallthings said
Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is talking about the world wide preaching work including teaching the disciples and baptism by immersion so they can become an ordained minister.
All early baptised true Christians were ordained ministers in the first century
There was no paid clergy until the rise of the hierarchy after the death of the apostles.
Malik said
jbjbjbjbjb said
Hi – can anyone help me?I have a sense of uneasiness about the reliability of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Yet, there are virtually no textual discussions on the matter (including Metzger) for the simple reason that all the oldest manuscripts seem to be in agreement of the full triadic formula + with you until the end (although the “amen” seems to be a subsequent layer, mostly removed).
If you do believe in the reliability of Matthew 28:19 as an authentic text, than you would have to admit that the disciples are disobeying Christ.
Now let us compare:
Matthew 28:19 King James Version (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:
Now notice the order is clear within the above verse. It doesn’t mention that one can baptize SOMETIMES in the name of Jesus or the trinity. But a clear and unequivocal ORDER to baptize them using this EXACT formula. Contrast this with the following verses from Acts:
Acts 2:38 King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:12 King James Version (KJV)
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.
Acts 8:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 10:48 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.Then they invited him to stay for several days.
Acts 19:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Notice there is not a SINGLE occurrence of baptism actually being performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost despite the so-called order being given in in Matthew 28:19.
To conclude, if one believes that Matthew 28:19 is ORIGINAL to the text (and not a fabrication), they would have no choice but to believe that the disciples were disobeying the last words and orders from Jesus Christ.
How about if they baptized in the name of Jesus instead of Lord? If the one baptizing hiccuped during the the ceremony and skipped a word, would the individual being baptized miss out on heaven upon his death? What if the water didn’t touch every part of his body? Did the thief on the cross get off and get baptized and climb back on so he could get into heaven with Jesus when he died? And, BTW, how could Jesus promise the guy the two would reunite in heaven later that day when Jesus wouldn’t rise from the dead for 3 days?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)