Was the Trinity added to Matthew’s gospel in the 4th centu

[polonius]

This is how the last paragraph of Matthew’s gospel now appears in
Matthew 28:19:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.�

However, reviewing the writings of Eusebius, (c. 260-339 ) a bishop and early Catholic writer and historian, who had access to earlier Gospels of Matthew, we find a different ending appearing a number of times with the omission of the reference to Baptism and the Trinity. Note: Bishop Eusebius was an Arian who changed his position at the Council of Nicaea thus allowing himself to retain his office and avoid exile.

Was Matthew 28:19 added for dogmatic reasons, and not fully assured in the text till after the Council of Nicaea?

Also very significant is that there are five descriptions of baptism in the New Testament. Four are in Acts of the Apostles describing baptism in the name of Jesus alone.

See Eusebius’ Demonstratio

(4) Book IX, Chapter 11, 445 (c), p. 175

And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."

(5) Book I, Chapter 3, 6 (a), p. 20

Hence of course, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Son of God, said to His disciples after His Resurrection: "Go and make disciples of all the nations," and added "Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you."

[polonius]

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/b ... es-version

“Another serious mistake in the King James and New King James versions is in 1 John 5:7-8. The latter part of verse 7 and first part of verse 8 did not appear in the Greek texts for the first 1,000 years after the Scriptures were completed. Around the year 500 this portion appeared in the Latin version known as the Vulgate. Apparently the insertion was an attempt to bolster the then-controversial belief in the Trinity. The words added are as follows: “in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth.�
“None of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament up to the year 1300 contain these words. “The textual evidence is all against 1 John 5:7. Of all the Greek manuscripts, there are only two which contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Both clearly show this verse to be translated from the Latin� (Neil Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 1963, pp. 57-58).�

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 9 by JehovahsWitness]

Some of these you know as the NWT does not include them. Like Mark !6:9-20. I don;t think that one should be included either. i will do the Mark ones first.
7:19 ", thus purifying all foods" Noted in the KJV and NKJV. If you why, you find it was added by the same copyist is the belief. NU text excludes the phrase for this reason.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... ifference/

NU text also excludes verse 44 last phrase of 45 and all of 46 in chapter 9. Same reason. Well known to be added later and noted in the NKJV.

Mark 11:26 and part of 10

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/why- ... -my-bible/

15:28 Not in oldest manuscripts . Scroll down a bit. Its noted.

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/mark/15-28.html
.
Please note I chose random references to illustrate this knowledge is out there and has been and no one in authority even mentions this. Except your JW's mention and their bibles reflect some of it. Which is good and right.

Sure if a schribe or cpyist is inspired by God, it is scripture . But, not clearly marking things as thought to be such and teaching them as gospel is not.

"teaching as doctrine the commandments of men" comes to mind in the worst case.

Deception to some degree in the least.

That said. I am pretty sure you know all this. And more.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 12 by brianbbs67]

Thanks for making a start.

Will you be providing references for all the other scriptures?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Was Matthew 28:19 added for dogmatic reasons, and not fully assured in the text till after the Council of Nicaea?

What is the context of the Greek? If you do not know Greek, why raise questions that clearly require understanding of Greek?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Was Matthew 28:19 added for dogmatic reasons, and not fully assured in the text till after the Council of Nicaea?

What is the context of the Greek? If you do not know Greek, why raise questions that clearly require understanding of Greek?

RESPONSE: Are you really suggesting that one can only be certain of writings in one's own language? Have you heard of reliable translations?

If you want to discuss Matthew 28:19's Greek context, please provide the the English translation you insist is accurate. Perhaps you will do the same for the 1 John reference to Trinity as well.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

The three most reliable families of texts (Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine), some of which pre-date Nicaea, all include the phrase “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.�

Because of this, it is not plausible that phrase was added at Nicaea.

RESPONSE: The New Testament originals were written in 70 AD, 80 AD and 95 AD. They contain interpolations (additions) from later dates.

Lets start with the your Alexandrian Text. It was written in the 5th century. Care to check when the other two were written? And what did they use as a source document?

For example, Even the story of Jesus forgiving the sinful woman was added in the fourth century and is not found in the 325 Codex Sinaticus or the 375 Codex Vaticanus.

Eusebius' Matthew was written much earlier (c. 80 AD), and it contains five baptisms always done in the name of Jesus alone not the trinity.

The Alexandrian family of texts is a group of several documents copied between 200 AD and 1066 AD.

What is significant is that all of the oldest and most reliable texts include the Trinitarian formula at the end of Matthew. These documents were spread across the known world and consistently copied down little variation. When a passage is the same (or essentially the same) in all of these documents, then scholars almost universally agree that it is a reliable form of the original document.

In contrast with this you have not provided an actual text of Matthew as a reference. Instead, you have pointed the writings of someone referencing a document that we cannot examine. Accepting this as more reliable than virtually all the documents that we can examine is an extreme form of eisegesis and cannot be considered a plausible interpretation.

[polonius]

bjs posted

The Alexandrian family of texts is a group of several documents copied between 200 AD and 1066 AD.

What is significant is that all of the oldest and most reliable texts include the Trinitarian formula at the end of Matthew. These documents were spread across the known world and consistently copied down little variation. When a passage is the same (or essentially the same) in all of these documents, then scholars almost universally agree that it is a reliable form of the original document.

In contrast with this you have not provided an actual text of Matthew as a reference. Instead, you have pointed the writings of someone referencing a document that we cannot examine. Accepting this as more reliable than virtually all the documents that we can examine is an extreme form of eisegesis and cannot be considered a plausible interpretation.

RESPONSE: Perhaps you should read all my posts on this thread.

In contrast with this you have not provided an actual text of Matthew as a reference. Instead, you have pointed the writings of someone referencing a document that we cannot examine.

Most people own Bibles and can read what is clearly there. If you don't, you can find one on the web.

Please provide your reference that the Alexandrian text was written starting before the 4th or 5th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ale ... s#Contents

“The Codex Alexandrinus (London, British Library, MS Royal 1. D. V-VIII; Gregory-Aland no. A or 02, Soden δ 4) is a fifth-century manuscript of the Greek Bible,[n 1] containing the majority of the Septuagint and the New Testament.[1] It is one of the four Great uncial codices. Along with the Codex Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. Brian Walton assigned Alexandrinus the capital Latin letter A in the Polyglot Bible of 1657.[2] This designation was maintained when the system was standardized by Wettstein in 1751.[3] Thus, Alexandrinus held the first position in the manuscript list.[4]
“It derives its name from Alexandria where it resided for a number of years before it was brought by the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Cyril Lucaris from Alexandria to Constantinople.[5] Then it was given to Charles I of England in the 17th century. Until the later purchase of Codex Sinaiticus, it was the best manuscript of the Greek Bible deposited in Britain.[n 2] Today, it rests along with Codex Sinaiticus in one of the showcases in the Ritblat Gallery of the British Library.[6][7] A full photographic reproduction of the New Testament volume (Royal MS 1 D. viii) is available on the British Library's website.[8] As the text came from several different traditions, different parts of the codex are not of equal textual value.[6][9] The text has been
edited several times since the 18th century.�

Please present your evidence that the Codex Alexandrinus existed before the 5th century

http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-a.html

Codex Alexandrinus received its name from the circumstance that its earliest known location was the Egyptian city of Alexandria. It is believed to be from the fifth century. The text is written in capitals (called uncial script), and arranged in two columns on the page. It contains the entire Greek Bible, minus Matthew 1:1 through 25:6, John 6:50 through 8:52, and 2 Corinthians 4:13 through 12:6. At the end are added some early Christian writings commonly used in teaching: the first Epistle of Clement, and the second Epistle of Clement up to 12:4.

Eusebius: Note 1 in W. J. Ferrar’s edition: Matthew 28:19. The verse is quoted thus seven times in the Demonstratio with the omission of the reference to Baptism and the Trinity. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal, i. (1902-3) p. 102), who holds that the reference was interpolated for dogmatic reasons, and was not fully assured in the text till after the Council of Nicea, supports his view from the practice of Eusebius. This is the view of Kirsopp Lake, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ii. 380 and Moffatt, The Historical New Test. 1901, p. 647. The historicity of the words as ipsissima verba is denied by Harnack, Clemen, and J. A. Robinson, Encyclopedia Biblica, art. "Baptism" From the Acts taken literally it would be gathered that apostolic Baptism was simply in the Name of Jesus. – (Acts 8:12-16; Acts 9:18; Acts 22:16)

I believe I’ve already referenced the Demonstratio of Eusebius Here is a website for you reading. Note that Eusebius quotesMatthew's gospel with NO reference to the Trinitanian baptismal formula. Note also that four passages in Acts of the Apostles refers to baptism very specifically in the name of Jesus alone.

For your reading and also elsewhere on the web.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/demonstratio.iii.html

[bjs]

Please provide your reference that the Alexandrian text was written starting before the 4th or 5th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Ale ... s#Contents

“The Codex Alexandrinus (London, British Library, MS Royal 1. D. V-VIII; Gregory-Aland no. A or 02, Soden δ 4) is a fifth-century manuscript of the Greek Bible,[n 1] containing the majority of the Septuagint and the New Testament.[1] It is one of the four Great uncial codices. Along with the Codex Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. Brian Walton assigned Alexandrinus the capital Latin letter A in the Polyglot Bible of 1657.[2] This designation was maintained when the system was standardized by Wettstein in 1751.[3] Thus, Alexandrinus held the first position in the manuscript list.[4]
“It derives its name from Alexandria where it resided for a number of years before it was brought by the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Cyril Lucaris from Alexandria to Constantinople.[5] Then it was given to Charles I of England in the 17th century. Until the later purchase of Codex Sinaiticus, it was the best manuscript of the Greek Bible deposited in Britain.[n 2] Today, it rests along with Codex Sinaiticus in one of the showcases in the Ritblat Gallery of the British Library.[6][7] A full photographic reproduction of the New Testament volume (Royal MS 1 D. viii) is available on the British Library's website.[8] As the text came from several different traditions, different parts of the codex are not of equal textual value.[6][9] The text has been
edited several times since the 18th century.�

Please present your evidence that the Codex Alexandrinus existed before the 5th century

I have not said that the Codex Alexandrinus existed prior to the 5th century. I said that the Alexandrian family of texts was written between 200 and 1066 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type

Again, remember that it is not any single text that matters. What matters is that all of the oldest and most reliable texts, spread across the known world at that time, agree on the Trinitarian ending of Matthew. Even if one document left off that ending, the overwhelming evidence seen in many independent documents is that Trinitarian ending was a part of the original text of Matthew.

[polonius]

Perhaps bjs will provide us with a citation or reference for a copy of a first, second, or third century gospel of Matthew with todays Mathew 28:19 “trinity evidence�.

http://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html

Is it possible Matthew 28:19 was fraudulently changed to vindicate trinitarianism because very conveniently every surviving Greek text of Matthew [28:19] dates from 340 AD or later? It clearly could be modified and no one would be the wiser. Only quotes by the church fathers from an earlier time could betray the truth, as indeed seventeen such quotes exist and do so—each one omitting the trinitarian baptismal formula in their direct quotes from Matthew 28:19.1 [See Footnote 1 at end.]

So how strong is the evidence? The consensus of even the most conservative scholars is that the trinitarian formula at Matthew 28:19 was added to the original Matthew at a very late point in time: after the adoption of the trinity doctrine.

The book of Acts and Paul’s epistles repeatedly show the original baptismal formula was to baptize into only Jesus’ name. See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15. The Protestant authority The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Funk & Wagnalls, 1908) at 435 agrees that Matthew 28:19’s trinity formula is a false addition:

It must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts that were written in the first, second or third centuries. T here is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his epistle and our earliest manuscript copies.


(It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the “early church fathers� wanted it to become.)
This is what my research revealed. Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.� He wrote prolifically and his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19 several times. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.�

[bjs]

Perhaps bjs will provide us with a citation or reference for a copy of a first, second, or third century gospel of Matthew with todays Mathew 28:19 “trinity evidence�.

http://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html

Is it possible Matthew 28:19 was fraudulently changed to vindicate trinitarianism because very conveniently every surviving Greek text of Matthew [28:19] dates from 340 AD or later? It clearly could be modified and no one would be the wiser.

Sure it’s possible. That is called a conspiracy theory. It is possible that GM has had a hydrogen powered car since the 1970’s. It is possible that George W. Bush was the mastermind behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks. It is possible that a secret society called the Illuminate actually run the world. It is possible that all the documents of the New Testament have been changed as part of a massive conspiracy for some reason.

All of those things are possible. None of them are plausible.