Shalom
George H. Gilbert Quotes Mr Conybeare and says the following on Matthew 28:19:
“There is important external evidence against the existence of this formula in manuscripts current before the time of Eusebius, and various recent writers have urge that the practice of baptism in Acts and Epistles of Paul is utterly incompatible with the view that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (E.g., Martineau, The Seat of Authority in religion, page 515; Percy Gardener, Exploratio Evangilica, page 445; Sabatier, Religions of Authority and Religion of Spirit, page 52; Harnack, History of Dogma Volume 1, 79, note).”
George H. Gilbert then says:
“It is obvious that the location of this word between ‘Father’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ is virtually a claim that the Son stands on the same level with them. The position takes him up, as it were, into the very center of the Deity. But to this claim the words of Jesus in our oldest sources stand opposed. Unique and divine as is their claim regarding the character of the Master a claim like that of the Baptismal formula, but in the clearest, most unambiguous terms assert what is diametrically opposed to the implication of that passage. They assert manhood; they deny attributes of deity (e.g., omniscience and absolute goodness). Therefore it is impossible to hold that the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels can have spoken the words of the Baptismal formula” [1]
James Moffatt’s NT Translation in his footnote (page 64) says the following words:
“….it may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing “in the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5….”
Bultmann says:
“As to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, (the apocryphal Catholic Didache) suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later expanded (changed) to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.”[2]
Principal A. J. Grieve says:
“The command to baptize into the threefold name is late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words ‘baptizing… spirit’ we should probably read simply ‘into my name’, i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, or ‘in my name’” [3]
Former Priest Tom Harpur:
“All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) baptism was “into” or “in” the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in My Name” and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake’s commentary was first published: “The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion….“[4]
Bruce Metzger says:
“Among the criticism levelled at Erasmus one of the most serious appeared to be the charge of Stunica, one of the editors of Ximenes Complutensian Polyglot, that his Text lacked part of the Final chapter of 1: John, namely the Trinitarian statement concerning Father, the word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth’ (1 John v.7-8 King James Version). Erasmus replied that he had NOT found any Greek manuscripts containing these words... Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called in future editions if a single Greek manuscripts could be found that contained the passage… As it now appears, the Greek manuscripts had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate…. Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament examined since time of Erasmus only three others are known to contain this spurious passage They are Greg. 88, a twelfth-century manuscript which has the comma written in the margin in a seventeenth-century hand; Tisch. W 110, which is a sixteenth-century manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek Text… The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and may have been written as a marginal gloss in a Latin Manuscripts of 1 John, whence it was taken into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the fifth century. The passage does NOT appear in Manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate before about A.D. 800.” [5]
Ezra Abbott:
…..I will here simply remind the reader that Erasmus introduced the passage into his third edition of the Greek Testament in 1522 abd Luther died in 1546…. Luther after quoting the passage of three heavenly witnesses, remarks:- ‘These words are not found in the Greek Bibles; but it seems as if this verse had been inserted by the Orthodox against the Arians….. We may observe finally that the other early reformers and friends of Luther generally rejected the passage; so Zwingli, Bullinger, Ecolampadius, Bugenhagen (Rickli, ubi supra, pp. 35, 36). So, also, according to Kettner (Histpria dicti Johannei… 1 John v. 7 etc., 1713, cap. 13), Melanchthon, Crucigner), Justus Jonas, Forester, Aurogallus. (see Semler, Hist. U krit. Sammulugun uber 1 John v. 7, 1. 248.) Bugenhagen, as we have seen, was especially strenuous against it; see his Exposito Jona, 1550, cited by Rickli, p. 39. It was also omitted in the Celebrated Lati version of the Bible by Leo Judae, Pellicanus, Peter Cholin, Rudolph Gualther, and others printed at Zürich in 1543. Fol., and commonly called the Zurich Bible or version Tigurina. A Marginal note explains the reason for its rejection…. To trace the history of this gross corruption of the Text in modern Translations, Catechisms and confessions of Faith, especially in the Greek church since the sixteenth century, and in modern editions of some ancient versions, as Pe****o Syriac, Armenian and Slavonic, might be interesting and instructive, psychologically as well as critically; but there is no room for it here.[6]
Brooke F. Westcott gave a long essay on 1 John 5:7 he then made the following Summary on 1 John 5:7
“…THE WORDS ARE NOT FOUND:
(1) In any independent Greek MS (more than 180 MSS and 50 Lectionaries are quoted). Both the late MS which contain it have unquestionably been modified by the Latin Vulgate.
(2) In any independent Greek writer. The very few Greek writers who make use of the words derived their knowledge of them from the Latin (not in Ir Cl.Al Orig Did Athan Bas Greg. Naz Cyr.Al).
(3) In any Latin Father earlier than Victor Vitensis or Vigilius Tapsensis (not in Tert Cypr Hil Ambr Hier Aug Leo).(4) Not in any ancient version except the Latin; and it was not found in the Old Latin in its early form (Tert Cypr Aug), or (b) in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome (Codd. Am fuld or (c) as revised by Alcuin (Cod. Vallicell).”[7]
Pulpit Commentary:
“Verse 7. – For those who bear witness are three, and thus constitute full legal testimony (Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1). It will be assumed here, without discussion, that the remainder of this verse and the first clause of verse 8 are spurious. Words which are not contained in a single Greek uncial manuscript, nor in a single Greek cursive earlier than the fourteenth century (the two which contain the passage being evidently translated from the Vulgate), nor are quoted by a single Greek Father during the whole of the Trinitarian controversy, nor are found in any authority until late in the fifth century, cannot be genuine.” [8]
Edward Gibbon:
“The Memorable text which asserts the unity of the THREE who bear witness in heaven is condemned by the universal silence of the Orthodox fathers, ancient versions and authentic manuscripts. It was first alleged by the Catholic bishops whom Huneric summoned to the conference of Carthage. An allegorical interpretation in the form, perhaps, of a marginal note invaded the text of the Latin Bibles which were renewed and corrected in the dark period of ten centuries. After the invention of printing, the editors of the Greek Testament yielded to their own prejudices, or those of the times; and the pious fraud, which was embraced with equal zeal at Rome and at Geneva, has been indefinitely multiplied in every country and every language of modern Europe.” [9]
Jonathan Hill:
“It will be remembered that in the second century, Christian theologians such as Justin Martyr had used the old ‘logos’ idea – ultimately taken from pagan philosophy – to try express this relationship. Christ was the ‘logos’, a sort of Qausi-God who functions as Gods agent. This had formed the basis for the development of what would become the doctrine of the Trinity.” [10]
Joseph Priestley
“It has been shewn that there is no such doctrine as that of the Trinity in the Scriptures, but I will now add that, if it had been found there, it would have been impossible for a reasonable man to believe it, as it implies a contradiction which no miracles can prove.”[11]
Theodore D. Beacon:
“It is generally recognized that the doctrine of the trinity is not directly taught in the Bible, but it was claimed that we do find there set forth with great earnestness the various elements, the disjecta membra, as they are called, from which the doctrine was built up.” [12]
Henry S. Francis:
“The dogma of the Trinity three persons in one God – was formulated by St. Augistine.”[13]
Professor Keith Ward:
“It took the church hundreds of years to develop what we now think of as the doctrine of the Trinity.”
[14]
[1] George Holley Gilbert, The Biblical World > Vol. 34, No. 6, Dec., 1909 , page 374 to 378
[2] R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament. Page 133
[3] Principal A. J. Grieve, A Commentary on the Bible (1920), page 723[4] Former Priest Tom Harpur “For Christ’s sake, page 103[5] Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament page 101-102
[6] Ezra Abbott The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays: Page 459 to 463
[7] Brooke Foss WestCott The Epistle of St John (1892) Page 202
[8] 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
[9] Edward Gibbon with Notes By the Reverend H. H. Milman. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire (1900), volume 6, Page 195 to 198
[10] Jonathan Hill, The history of Christianity page 80
[11] Joseph Priestley An History of early opinions concerning Jesus Christ, page 48
[12] The American Journal of Theology > Vol. 16, No. 4, Oct., 1912 Practical Aspects of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Theodore D. Bacon . Page 529
[13] Henry S. Francis The Holy Trinity (Journal) Vol. 48, No. 4, page 59
[14] Professor Keith Ward, Re-thinking Christianity page 24
Regards,
Mazhar
