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."

[dio9]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

The trinity wasn't an issue at Nicaea . It became one later in 383 council of Constantinople. Maybe after 381 when the trinity was discussed. If there is any way to know for sure I'd like to see it. But I highly doubt an addition to the gospel after 381 would not be covered up with no evidence available.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

The trinity wasn't an issue at Nicaea . It became one later in 383 council of Constantinople. Maybe after 381 when the trinity was discussed. If there is any way to know for sure I'd like to see it. But I highly doubt an addition to the gospel after 381 would not be covered up with no evidence available.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your response. Here are some of my references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Cr ... eed_of_325

“The original Nicene Creed was first adopted in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the text ended with the words "We believe in the Holy Spirit", after which various anathemas against Arian propositions were added.[11]
Reference (11) Bindley, T. Herbert. The Oecumenical Documents of the FaithMethuen & C° 4th edn. 1950 revised by Green, F.W. pp. 15, 26–27

http://goodnewspirit.com/churchcouncils.htm

The First Council of Nicea, held in Bithynia in Asia Minor and overseen by the Roman emperor Constantine, proclaimed the true manhood and true divinity of Jesus Christ and decreed the doctrine of the Trinity. It was from this Council that the Nicean Creed was formulated. The Council was held to counter the heresy of Arius who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit

https://probe.org/the-council-of-nicea/
First, the doctrine of the Trinity was a widely held belief prior to the Council of Nicea. Since baptism is a universal act of obedience for new believers, it is significant that Jesus uses Trinitarian language in Matthew 28:19 when He gives the Great Commission to make disciples and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Note: Actually, according to Eusebius's New Testaments this was not originally in Matt 28
The Didache, an early manual of church life, also included the Trinitarian language for baptism. It was written in either the late first or early second century after Christ. We find Trinitarian language again being used by Hippolytus around 200 A.D. in a formula used to question those about to be baptized. New believers were to asked to affirm belief in God the Father, Christ Jesus the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... -concludes
The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Convened by Roman Emperor Constantine I in May, the council also deemed the Arian belief of Christ as inferior to God as heretical, thus resolving an early church crisis.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 3 by polonius.advice]

still the question is , was it added to the original after trinity became popular . Again a big maybe.

[steveb1]

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."

The text does not have to be Trinitarian. It does not explicitly require the notion of a "Triune God". It only says to bless the nations in the name of God (the Father), Jesus (the Son of God, not necessarily "God the Son"), and the Spirit (the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus, which in early Christianity were frequently interchangeable). Moreover, the text is not necessarily a formula. It's a directive, a suggestion, a recommendation on how to baptize - to baptize "in the name of" the three sacred aspects of the one God - "aspects" - not necessarily Trinitarian Persons.

[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.

[polonius]

[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.

And there is this" “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. “(Matthew 11:27) Note that only the Father and Son know each other (other than those Jesus reveals)--which shows, for example, that the Holy Spirit, which is not mentioned. It should be clear that according to Jesus' words, obviously the Holy Spirit is NOT a co-equal member of a Greco-Roman trinity. But Jesus' words are consistent with the binitarian view of the Godhead.�

[brianbbs67]

These are the verses I found that are known to be added later by copists.

ANd all these are thought or known to be added laterMatthew 9:34
Matthew 12:47
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 21:44
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Mark 16:9–20
Luke 17:36
Luke 22:20
Luke 22:43
Luke 22:44
Luke 23:17
Luke 24:12
Luke 24:40
John 5:4
John 7:53–8:11
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

The majority make no difference to the whole. But Mark's additions seem too. Either way, they should be excluded or Noted visibly for all to see their origin, for the sake of full disclosure and truth.

There is a thought about the baptism , in all three, maybe added by Trinitarians also. It could go either way, but Christ did say to baptize in his name and ask the Father for things in prayer in his name. Not to pray to him.(Christ)

[JehovahsWitness]

These are the verses I found that are known to be added later by copists.

ANd all these are thought or known to be added laterMatthew 9:34
Matthew 12:47
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 21:44
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Mark 16:9–20
Luke 17:36
Luke 22:20
Luke 22:43
Luke 22:44
Luke 23:17
Luke 24:12
Luke 24:40
John 5:4
John 7:53–8:11
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

The majority make no difference to the whole. But Mark's additions seem too. Either way, they should be excluded or Noted visibly for all to see their origin, for the sake of full disclosure and truth.

There is a thought about the baptism , in all three, maybe added by Trinitarians also. It could go either way, but Christ did say to baptize in his name and ask the Father for things in prayer in his name. Not to pray to him.(Christ)

These are the verses I found that are known to be added later by copists.

ANd all these are thought or known to be added later.

Can you supply a reference for each passage to support your claim?


Thanks,

JW

[polonius]

Another attempt to try to give a scriptural basis to the doctrine of the Trinity in addition to the last sentence in Matthew’s gospel is the famous Johnannine Comma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

"The Comma Johanneum, also called the Johannine Comma or the Heavenly Witnesses, is a comma (a short clause) found in Latin manuscripts of the First Epistle of John[1] at 5:7–8. The comma first appeared in the Vulgate manuscripts of the 9th century. The first Greek manuscript that contains the comma dates from the 15th century.[3]

"The comma is absent from the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament.[3] The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in some subsequent copies.[1] As the comma does not appear in the manuscript tradition of other languages, the debate is mainly limited to the English-speaking world due to the King James Only movement."

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/b ... 1-john-5-7

"It reads in the King James Version, also known as the Authorized Version: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.� The words in italics are simply not a part of the generally accepted New Testament manuscripts. Regrettably, in this particular passage some other versions read essentially the same.

"Many other more recent Bible versions likewise recognize the spurious added text and omit it, including the New International Version, American Standard Version and New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New English Bible and Revised English Bible, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible and New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Bible, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Bible in Basic English and the Twentieth Century New Testament.

“The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7,� explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. “Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate� ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).