[B-Greek] The Strength of the Text at Matthew 28:18-20

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Wed Nov 26 19:07:01 EST 2003


On Nov 26, 2003, at 3:16 PM, Danny Dixon wrote:

> "Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the 
> debates aobut Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation 
> of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of 
> him read "in the name of the, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," 
> he wold never have quoted it as "in my name." Thus we believe that the 
> earliest manuscripts read "in my name," and that the phrase was 
> enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence was 
> spread" (Mark Graseser, John Lynn, John Schoenheit, ONE GOD & ONE 
> LORD, 2nd ed. [Indianapolis: Christian Educational Services, 2000], p. 
> 455).

This, of course, is predicated on the question-begging assumptions that 
(1) Eusebius is **directly quoting** ANY text of the NT or that he had 
any such text **in front of him** (much less "manuscripts" plural!), 
(2) that EN TWi ONOMATI MOU stands **in place of** EIS TO ONOMA TOU 
PATROS KAI TOU hUIOU KAI TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS, when it is clear that 
the former modifies MAQHTEUSATE and the latter BAPTIZONTES, and (3) 
Eusebius would **necessarily** have quoted the traditional text if he 
**had** had it in front of him (a non sequitur).

There could be any number of reasons for his using the wording he does. 
Consider the following:

(1) Perhaps, as Lake mentions, Eusebius did not wish to publicly reveal 
the formula of baptism. The church tended to be somewhat secretive of 
its rites.

(2) Eusebius my be--intentionally or otherwise--conflating Mt 28.19 
with another NT text such as Lk 24.47, which reads KAI KHRUCQHNAI EPI 
TWi ONOMATI AUTOU METANOIAN EIS AFESIN hAMARTIWN EIS PANTA TA EQNH.

(3) If, as some think, Eusebius sympathized with Arianism, it may be 
that he is showing his own theological colors here. In other words, the 
omission may reveal his own bias, so to say that if he had a manuscript 
or manuscripts before him containing the familiar reading of Mt 28.19 
he would surely have quoted it or them verbatim is wishful thinking at 
best and certainly does not necessarily follow.

(4) Perhaps Eusebius, knowing that this text was controversial, wished 
to avoid controversy altogether by omitting the reference to baptism 
and its formula.

The truth is that we really do not know why Eusebius wrote as he did, 
and any guess is just that--a guess.

> Certainly in this forum I should NOT be interested in any sort of 
> theological debate on unitarian versus trinitarian perspectives on 
> God. I'm just finding it very strange that first UBS4 and Nestle27 
> don't mention the “in my name” variant. Are even the Eusebius quotes 
> (ORATION IN PRAISE OF EMPEROR CONSTANTINE, 16.8; and ECCLESIASTICAL 
> HISTORY, III.5.2) mentioned in the apparatuses?

I would strongly suggest reading the introductions to both works. It 
will then become evident that this omission is not strange at all, 
never mind "very strange." There is no conspiracy here, just 
disciplined dealing with evidence. Note the following explanation in 
the introduction to NA27 of the criteria used to judge whether 
patristic quotations are included or not:

"Quotations from the New Testament in the writings of the Church 
Fathers provide clues of the times and places where particular text 
types were in use. Consequently they have considerable importance for 
the history and establishment of the text. It is all the more 
important, then, to distinguish clearly between the New Testament text 
that is quoted, and any adaptations of it to the immediate context.

"Accordingly two principle criteria for inclusion of patristic 
quotations have been observed in the present edition. First, the 
quotation must be useful for textual criticism, i.e., the New Testament 
text  quoted by the author must be recognizable as such. An author's 
paraphrases, variations, or sheer allusions have no place in the 
apparatus of a critical edition of the New Testament. Furthermore, the 
quotation must be clearly identified as from a particular passage in 
the New Testament. Sequenced quotations of related passages and 
harmonizations are ignored, especially in the Synoptic Gospels. The 
reader should be aware of this fact when noticing that some familiar 
evidence is missing. An advantage of this disciplined approach is the 
greater reliability of the evidence that is presented" (p. 72*).

Similarly, UBS4 states the following:

"The whole field of New Testament citations in the Church Fathers has 
been thoroughly reviewed. For a citation to be included there were two 
criteria to be met. The citation must be capable of verification, i.e., 
the New Testament text or the manuscript cited by the author must be 
identifiable. Patristic paraphrases, variations, and allusions have no 
place in this edition. The citation must relate clearly to a specific 
passage in the New Testament. Connected or harmonized citations, 
especially in the Synoptic Gospels, are not included. This should be 
remembered if the reader finds that information is missing for a 
passage. But the advantage of this restriction is that the information 
provided is as reliable as any information in this difficult area can 
be" (p. 29*).

I light of the above, it should come as no surprise that neither 
critical edition cites this material from Eusebius, for it is 
abundantly clear that his words bear witness to no reliable NT 
manuscripts whatsoever and therefore are useless in offering any "clues 
of the times and places where particular text types were in use" and 
consequently have no "importance for the history and establishment of 
the text"! The object here is to **offer witnesses** to texts that we 
actually have, not to **overturn** the NT texts actually at our 
disposal! The editors would have violated their own criteria by 
including this quote from Eusebius. This is the difference between the 
disciplined, scientific approach to NT criticism and the 
catch-as-catch-can mentality of grasping at implausible straws for 
sectarian purposes.

> The authors further reason as follows:
>
>
>
> “If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then 
> there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, 
> since there is not a single occurrence of them  baptizing anyone 
> according to that formula . . .”

I'm not going to bite here, since the above quote would only drive us 
into broader theological issues and away from the textual question in 
view.

> As Steven pointed out, it is not any form of BAPTIZEIN that is 
> modified by EN TWi ONOMATI MOU, but rather MAQHTEUSATE PANTA TA EQNH 
> EN TWi ONOMATI MOU. So Graeser, Lynn, and Schoenheit are missing the 
> point anyway from a textual perspective. If Eusebius’ elusive text 
> existed anywhere, however, it seems to me to be something OTHER THAN a 
> phrase in Matthew 28, which stands on its own merits in the tradition.
============

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list