Why do Reputable Bibles contain Matthew 28:19 ?

Matthew 28:19 does not appear in any ancient manuscripts prior to the fourth century. So how did it worm its way into so many seemingly reputable Bibles ? It must be remembered that four hundred hears after Christ's time - was a literal cauldron of controversy regarding the doctrine of the trinity. The Romans had taken over Christianity and were eagerly attempting to get Christ to fit into their god-like figures. The God that Christ worshipped was totally tossed away - in favor of turning God's son into a Graeco-Roman god. The pagans in the empire would be totally in love with that idea. And so Christ was marketed and packaged by Rome as a dualhead - trinity god. Even his name was changed from "Jehoshua" into "Iesous" (hail Zeus) and his birthday was made to coincide with all the sun-gods of that period (Dec 25). Christ's passover was swapped out for the springtime festival called "Easter" - after the fertility goddess Easter (Ishtar). The eggs and the rabbits are a sure hint. As a result of all these changes, Rome felt the need

to alter the Bible to make things more palatable to the Christians. "Correctores" were hired to add scriptures, delete scriptures and alter scriptures in the Bible. It was a tremendous task. And the Bible was indeed altered in more than two thousand places. And that number jumps to nine thousand times, if you add in the seven thousand times that the name "Jehovah" was removed and replaced by "LORD". Well, Matthew 28:19 appears to be a later insertion, or spurious scripture that was added almost 400 years after Christ walked the earth. "There is a verse in Matthew - Matthew 28:19 that has a problem. The problem is - there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!" -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study of the Text of the New Testament Randall Duane Hughes

The Problem With Matthew 28:19 "A Later insertion"

The Problem With Matthew 28:19 "A Later insertion"

The Bible verse at Matthew 28:19 is quoted by some trinitarians - as a "proof" text for the Trinity Formula. The trinity doctrine was formulated many years after the death of Christ and his apostles. The insertion of the "triune" baptismal formula at Matthew 28:19 is considered spurious by some scholars. Some feel that the wording was not part of the original text, but was put there by "Correctores" in order to support the man-made doctrine of the Trinity. Some scholars feel that the Triune Baptismal formula at Matthew 28:19 was a "later" insertion, and that it originally read "in the name of Jesus" only. After the Trinity Dogma was invented The Catholic Church felt a need to insert this Triune Formula into this verse as they had also done the same at 1John 5:7. ``````````````````````````````

Matthew 28:19 is the only verse in the entire Bible with the Trinity formula for baptism. This is the Trinity baptism formula that the majority of "Christianity" adheres to. There are numerous direct commands to baptize in Christ's Name alone - such as (Acts 10:48; 2:38), (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 22:16), (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:13) - which all point to baptism being performed in the Name of Christ by the Apostolic Church. When one examines some of the content of other disputed verses that have proven to be spurious one finds the Trinity mentioned in 1 John 5:7, as well as alluded to in the doxology from Matthew 6:13b. Such additions to Scripture can only make one wonder how such a doctrine was contrived after 4,000 years of God being viewed as absolutely One by the Jews! We will take a look at some of the facts relating to the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula and the evidence that has been brought against it for you to consider. ````````````````````````````````````` "There is a verse in Matthew - Matthew 28:19 that has a problem. The problem is - there are no manuscripts that contain this verse prior to the fourth century! There is absolutely NO manuscript in any language that contains it prior to the Trinitarian controversies. And the wording of this verse seems to speak in the language of this period, (4th Century) rather than from the time when Jesus spoke. Yet it seems there are few who are willing to weigh the evidence against this passage because of the weight it carries in Church tradition. The verse we will focus on is Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula!" -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study of the Text of the New Testament Randall Duane Hughes "one can look to the listing of the Papyri's as found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's "The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edition, 1995,

pages 96-103." This list gives a description of the verses contained in each of the 96 papyri's listed. Matthew 26:52 (P 37) seems to be the last verse from Matthew found in the Papyri's. So there is virtually a two chapter gap (as well as a three century gap) from the "earliest manuscripts" and the traditional rendering of the Matthew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula." -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study of the Text of the New Testament Randall Duane Hughes "Philip Comfort and David Barrett also bear out this fact in their book, "The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, 1999, pages 6 & 13." Page 6 contains the list of the various verses from Matthew, (with Matthew also ending at 26:52) and page 13, the comments they were providing - were for - only those manuscripts that were "dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)." Needless to say, Matthew 28:19, and the Trinity baptism formula is NOT among the verses found there!" -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study of the Text of the New Testament Randall Duane Hughes "Within the past hundred years there have been those who brought evidence against the Mathew 28:19 Trinity baptism formula. Men such as F.C. Conybeare, K. Lake, J. Martineau, A. Harnack, A.S. Peake, H. Kosmala, etc." -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study of the Text of the New Testament Randall Duane Hughes "Conybeare is believed to have been the first to write against it, following the discovery of a variant reading of the verse, within the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. Some 17 times in his works prior to Nicea, Eusebius quotes

Matthew 28:19 as "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name" without mentioning the Trinity baptism command." -Analysis of Matthew 28:19 - in A study of the Text of the New Testament Randall Duane Hughes ``````````````````````````````````` "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century." -The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263 "Matthew 28:19...its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism...this triune formula is a later addition." -The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics "It is often affirmed that the words 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' are not the exact words of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition." -The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275 "...in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted." -Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295 "...the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." -The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge page 435. ` "It may be that this formula, (Matthew 28:19) ...is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts

speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus"(only)..." -The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work "Matthew 28:19...is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus." -The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism" "Matthew 28:19 - Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..." -New Revised Standard Version "...scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command at Matthew 28:19 - was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words.... baptism was always "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone." - Tom Harpur; Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion." -The Bible Commentary (1919); Dr. Peake; page 723 "On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical...Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus. ...the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized

its converts in the name of Jesus only but later changed to Trinity baptism...It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism." -The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337 ` "...Matthew 28:19... the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as textural grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, which... baptized 'in' or 'into' the Name of Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, without any reference to the Father or the Spirit" -(DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, Page 88.)

Concerning Matthew 28:19 "the Acts of the Apostles...and Paul... speak only of Baptism 'in the Name of Jesus.' Baptism in titles cannot be found in the first centuries..." -NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: (McGraw Hill Publishing, Page 59.)

"The baptismal formula was changed by the Catholic Church from the name of Jesus Christ, to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the second century." -Encyclopedia Britannica (11th Edition, Volume 3, pages 365-366)

"The Christian baptism was administered using the Name of Jesus. The Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history. Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr,

when the Trinity formula was used." -The Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2, pages 377-389 ` "(Matt. 28:19) does not claim to be a statement of the historic Jesus and represents an addition made by the early church after his death. Similarly, the references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel were NOT spoken by Jesus." - Norman Pittenger, Anglican theologian at Cambridge The Divine Trinity (1977), pp. 21-22. ```````````````````````````````````` "The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism." - From The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585 "It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does NOT appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15)." - From The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83 "Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus only (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged."

- History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79 fn. "(Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century. The invariable original usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," only (Acts 2:38) and NOT "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula." -The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568 "It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine...there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." - History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112 "the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious (forgery - later insertion). No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the epistles of the apostles." - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398 "Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin." - The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143 "The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which they held to be the right readings." -Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory Matthew 28:19 "In the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest

Latin Manuscript, the pages do not exist which contained the end of Matthew." - F.C. Conybeare