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

Paul Schmehl pschmehl at sbcglobal.net
Wed Nov 26 22:32:09 EST 2003


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Dixon" <bereandad2003 at yahoo.com>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 3:16 PM
Subject: [B-Greek] The Strength of the Text at Matthew 28:18-20


>
> 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.
>
I did some research on this subject several years ago.  I can't seem to
locate my notes, so I'll have to do this strictly from memory.  But let me
first point out that this is off topic for the b-greek list and should
really have been posted to the textual criticism list.  If you wish to
entertain further discussion of this topic, it should be done either off
list or moved to the tc-list, where it is appropriate for discussion.

I searched the TLG for ONOMATI MOU (I believe it was the "D" version at that
time.  It's now up to "G" so the results may be different now.)  I can't
give you exact numbers, because I don't have my notes, but my recollection
is that Eusebius "quotes" this verse about a dozen times.  Approximately
half the time, he "quotes" the EN TWi ONOMATI MOU "reading", and the other
half he quotes the NA27/USB4 reading.  I'm sorry I can't give you cites, but
they can certainly be found in the TLG (which I would dearly love to
purchase some day.)  I place the word quotes in quotes :-) because material
in the fathers is often difficult at best to define as a quote rather than a
possible paraphrase or a quote from memory.

The most interesting aspect of this (to me) was that, if I recall correctly,
all of Eusebius' early quotes were of the shorter reading and all his later
quotes were of the present reading.  This leads one (or at least me) to
wonder if the texts changed during his lifetime to reflect the present
reading and he is simply quoting from the text his has to hand.  However,
that is pure speculation, nothing more.  I think the matter deserves a more
thorough investigation, but I know of no one who is doing so.

In his "The History of the Church", book 3, section 5, he writes, "but to
teach their message they travelled into every land in the power of Christ,
who had said to them: 'POREUQENTES MAQHTEUSATE PANTA TA EQNH EN TWi ONOMATI
MOU".  That appears to me to be a quote or (less likely) a paraphrase.

The USB4 reads "POREUQENTES OUN MAQHTEUSATE PANTA TA EQNH BAPTIZONTES AUTOUS
EIS TO ONOMA TOU PATROS KAI TOU UIOU KAI TOU AGION PNEUMATOS".

It's easy for me to understand how the shorter version could have been
replaced by the longer.  If you simply drop OUN, which is superflous anyway,
and replace from BAPTIZONTES forward with EN TWi ONOMATI MOU, you have the
exact same text in the beginning of this phrase, and the "disagreement" is
whether the shorter reading is "original" or the "longer".  Some would argue
for the shorter reading on textual criticism grounds (the shorter reading is
to be preferred), but I think that argument is way to worn out to use in
every case and certainly not applicable in this one.  There is no
"smoothing" or "harmonizing" going on that would explain the longer reading.

I'm not sure I get Steven's point.  I think pointing out that baptizing
isn't mentioned in the Eusebius reading is begging the point.  My personal
opinion is that the baptismal formula used here may well be a gloss from the
Didache (7.1), but that it just my opinion.  There's no proof that I know of
one way or the other, and the USB4 reading is certainly (and has been for
centuries) the accepted reading.

There is *no* extant text which contains the shorter reading, and there has
been very little speculation (that I was able to find) about the shorter
reading.  I found a brief discussion of the issue by Conybeare, and that was
about the extent of it.

Paul Schmehl
pschmehl at sbcglobal.net
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/




More information about the B-Greek mailing list