Luke 9:54 - What Happened?

Internal evidence is seldom more weighty than it is in Luke 9:54-56, where a cluster of textual variants pop up.  Today let’s zoom in on Luke 9:54.  At the end of Luke 9:54, ὡς καὶ Ὴλίας ἐποίησεν follows ἀυτούς in the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine text, A C D K Π W X Δ Θ Ψ 0211 f¹, f¹³ 33 565 892 1424 1505.  Versional support is found in several Old Latin witnesses (a, b, c [sort of], d, f, q, r¹) Gothic Peshitta Harklean Syriac Some Bohairic copies and some Vulgate copies.

Greek witnesses without ὡς καὶ Ὴλίας ἐποίησεν include P45, P75, À B L X 157 579 700 1241 1342.  Versional support for the shorter reading is supplies by Old Latin aur e l, the Vulgate, the Sinaitic Syriac and Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic version, Armenian version, and an early strata of the Georgian version.  Patristic support for non-inclusion comes from Tatian’s Diatessaron, Jerome, and Cyril of Alexandria.      

Tertullian, in Against Marcion IV:23, focused on Luke 9:54-56 when he wrote, “The Creator, at Elijah’s demand, brings down a plague of fire upon that false prophet.  I take note of a judge’s sternness: and on the contrary of Christ’s gentleness when reproving the disciples as they call for the same punishment upon that village of the Samaritans. Let the heretic also take note that this gentleness of Christ is promised by that same stern Judge:  He shall not strive, it says, nor shall his voice be heard in the street: a bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench.  Such a one was even less likely to burn men up.  For even in reference to Elijah in his day, it says, The Lord was not in the fire but in a gentle spirit. 

It is not easy to discern from this what Tertullian’s copy of Luke read at the end of 9:54.   He clearly drew a contrast between what Jesus wanted his disciples to do and what had happened in the case of Elijah in Second Kings 1, but this is something that could be easily done without the words ὡς καὶ Ὴλίας ἐποίησεν or their Latin equivalent.  Tertullian is thus a non-witness. 

The internal evidence is decisive in this case:  there is no evident reason to remove the words if they were original.  There is a natural and simple reason to add ὡς καὶ Ὴλίας ἐποίησεν, to pinpoint the alluded-to incident.  The words were not written by Luke.   

 

 

 

John 5:3b-4: Original or Not?

            Metzger’s observation that 5:3b contains two “non-Johannine” words is lightweight, considering that John had few other occasions to use either ἐκδέχεσθαι or κίνησις.

            (I commend to readers both the article written by Zane Hodges in 1979 in Bibliotheca Sacra 136, pp. 25-39, and the article by Gordon Fee which appeared in Evangelical Quarterly 54 (pp. 207-218.)              

            Before reaching a conclusion about John 5:3b, let’s investigate 5:4.  Dr. Bill Mounce addressed this variant briefly, but his treatment is extremely oversimplified.  More is required.  First, we must get an idea of how much textual variation there is within this verse.  In A K L Y Δ Π, κυρίου (ΚΥ) appears after αγγελος γαρ (or, in L, αγγελος δε).  And instead of κατέβεινεν, A K Π Ψ 579 have ἐλούετο.  And A (supported by some Bohairic manuscripts) has ουν between δήποτ’ and κατείχετο.  Instead of δήποτε, K and Π have δ’ αν.  In C^c H M U Y Δ Λ Π 078 and at least 17 lectionaries, instead of ἐτάρασσεν, the text reads ἐταράσσετο.  The Ethiopic version also supports ἐταράσσετο.   Swanson erroneously lists Δ as if it reads ἐταράσσετο and ἐτάρασσεν; a check of the manuscript show that it supports ἐταράσσε το (the το being the το before ὕδωρ).  

            Plus, in S Λ Π 047, and 72 minuscules, the passage is marked with asterisks.  The Harklean Syriac also features the verse marked with asterisks.

             The external evidence mostly aligns with the external evidence for 5:3b – but not quite. D W^supp 33, 2718, and the Armenian and Georgian versions, which include 4:3b, do not imclude 5:4.  5:4 is supported by Tatian’s Diatessaron (as demonstrated by a comment by Ephrem in his commentary ), by Ambrose, by Tertullian, by Chrysostom (who was listed in UBS1 as a witness for both inclusion and non-inclusion), and Cyril.  

            Tertullian, in De Baptismo 5, near the end of the chapter, wrote, “If it seems an unheard-of thing that an angel should interfere with water, there was a precedent for that which was to be. The pool of Bethsaida ‘was stirred’ by the intervention of ‘an angel.’  Those who complained of their health used to watch for him. For anyone who had first descended there ceased to complain after a bath. This picture of bodily cure was prophetic of spiritual cure, according to the practice by which things carnal always precede, being a picture of things spiritual. As, therefore, the grace of God spread among men, greater power was added to the waters and the angel.”

            Tertullian goes on to say, “Those who healed bodily defects now heal the spirit.  Those who worked temporal salvation now restore for us everlasting salvation.  Those who freed one once a year, [this indicates how Tertullian understood κατά καιρόν] now daily save communities, death being destroyed by the washing away of sins.”  Tertullian clearly had no problem reading this verse and applying it to the life of the church.

            Chrysostom commented on 5:3b-4 in detail in his commentary on John, perceiving in the paralytic’s healing a thematic template of baptism and salvation. 

            Tertullian, in Latin, and Chrysostom, in Greek, demonstrate the antiquity of the passage in the text, as early as two papyri from c. 200 and c. 400 would.  Chrysostom also shows that John 5:4 was read in the text of the church in Byzantium during his bishopric.  Amphilochius of Iconium (340-403; bishop after 374) – cousin of Gregory of Nazianzus – does not include 5:4 in the text he used.  Both the non-inclusion and inclusion of 5:4 are very early readings.

            What phenomenon, occurring sometime between 90 (when the Gospel of John was written – unless John Robinson’s redating to pre-70 – in light of (among other things) 5:2 – is adopted) and 200, could elicit one transmission-stream to include John 5:4 (in the case of Tertullian’s text of John), and another transmission-stream to not include John 5:4 (in the case of P75, À, and B)? 

            I am willing to posit that an anomaly in the autograph of the Gospel of John itself elicited different treatments of John 5:3b-4.  Picture John reading chapter 5 to his listeners from the autograph for the very first time – without 5:3b-4.  Inevitably, someone would ask, “John, why were these sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people waiting near the pool instead of swimming in its water?”  And I can imagine that John added an explanatory note in the margin, “waiting for the moving of the waters.”

            And then someone asked, “What agitated the pool’s water?”.  And John, realizing that his listeners in Ephesus were oblivious to the background of the pool at Bethesda, added another note – and thus verse 4 came into existence as a second marginal note.  When John died, the autograph was entrusted to the Christian community at Ephesus – and they treated the annotations in three different ways in the next generation:

            In the ancestor of Byzantine manuscripts, the notes were either blended into the main text (as John 21 has been), or else copies just the way they appeared in the autograph, in the margin with symbols to connect them to John 5:3-5.  In the ancestor of Alexandrian manuscripts, receiving the text of the autograph slightly later (being in Egypt, not Ephesus), the notes were assumed to have originated with someone other than John, and were therefore not considered worthy to be included in either the main text or in the margin. 

            Another consideration might have been in play in the mind of the early Alexandrian scribe who decided not to include verse 4:  a desire to protect John from the charge of promoting superstition.  A scribe who thought he knew that water in the pool of Bethesda was agitated by entirely natural forces could easily persuade himself that the marginal note in his exemplar, stating that an angel of the Lord bathed in the pool of Bethesda, could not have been written by an inspired author; in addition, he did not wish to appear to commend Asklepieions.

            The testimony of P and its relatives which have John 5:4 with asterisks commends family P as an excellent representative of the autograph of the text of the Gospels.  The form of verse 4 that appears in Codex P is the form which should be adopted, instead of the readings found in the majority of manuscripts.

            An addition question is sure to be asked:  what should English Bible editors do with John 5:3-4?  I have no objection to the inclusion of 5:3-4 in the main text, or in the margin, with a note stating that the passage appears in the margin, or not at all, in a few early manuscripts.  But to omit it entirely would guarantee that English readers would perpetually ask, as John’s first listeners did, “Why weren’t they all swimming?” or, “Who or what stirred up the waters?”

            Another question may be on the minds of some readers:  Would an inspired author expand on his own narrative in this way, adding marginalia?  I see no reason why not.  Many a Spirit-led preacher reading from a manuscript he wrote has spontaneously clarified himself mid-sermon.  Even Saint Paul, in First Corinthians 1:16, clarified that he had baptized the household of Stephanas (who, according to tradition, was the jailor in Acts 16), right after saying, “I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.”  I Cor. 1:16 may have originally been a note in the margin added by Paul as he proof-read the letter; no one at Corinth, however, would have doubted its veracity.

 

Hand To Hand Combat: Sinaiticus vs. 162 in Matthew 9:1-17

             Today, let's look at the text of Matthew 9:1-17 in two manuscripts – the famous Codex Sinaiticus, and the little-known medieval minuscule 162, a copy of the Gospels which is housed in the Vatican Library as Barb. Gr. 449.

            According to the colophon that appear after the end of John, 162 was finished by a scribe named Manuel in 1153.  Its text is primarily Byzantine, but it has some unusual readings, the best-known of which is in Luke 11:2:  instead of saying, “Your kingdom come,” it says. “Let your holy Spirit come (upon us) to cleanse us” – a reading which is also supported by GA 700, and was known to Gregory of Nyssa. 

            In Tertullian’s composition Against Marcion, Book 4, Part 26, the author asks several rhetorical questions which seem to be drawn from a sequence of phrases in Luke 11, indicating that this reading was in the text used by Tertullian:

             First, “To whom can I say, “Father”? 

            Next, “Of whom can I ask for His Holy Spirit?”

            Next, “Whose kingdom shall I wish to come?” 

            Next, “Who shall give me my daily bread?”. 

            Next, “Who shall forgive me my trespasses?” 

            And next, “Who shall not allow us to be led into temptation?”. 

This indicates that a textual variant consisting of a request for the Holy Spirit to come and cleanse us, in Luke 11:2, although supported among Greek manuscripts  by only 700 and 162, was known to Tertullian in the second century.

           162 can be viewed page by page at the website of the Vatican Library.  Here is a selective index:   

Ad Carpianus begins

Eusebian Canons begin

Icon of Matthew

Matthew 1:1

Matthew 9:1

Matthew 16:1

Matthew 22:1

Matthew 25:1

Matthew 28:16-20 (cruciform)

Mark 1:9-1:18 

Mark 1:18-27

Mark 1:1 (w/icon headpiece)  

Mark 6:1

Mark 9:1

Mark 14:1

Luke 1:1 (w/icon headpiece)  

Luke 4:1

Luke 6:1

Luke 11:1

Luke 11:2     

Luke 15:1 

Luke 20:1 

John 1:1 (w/icon headpiece)

John 5:1

John 7:53 

John 14:1  

John 18:1  

John 20:1  

John 21:25

 

Now let’s see how accurate the text of Matthew 9:1-7 in 162 is compared to the same passage in the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.

1 –  162 has ὁ Ις­ after εμβας (+3)

1 – 162 has το after εις (+2)

1 – 162 has διεπέρασε instead of διεπέρασεν (-1)

2 – 162 has κλινης instead of κλεινης (-1)

2 – has ειπε instead of ειπεν (-1)

2 – 162 has αφεωνται instead of αφίενται (+2, -2)

2 – 162 has σου (+3)

4 – 162 has ιδων instead of ειδως (+1, -2)

4 – 162 has υμεις after τί (+5)

4 – has ενθυμεισθαι instead of ενθυμεισθε (+2, -1)

5 – 162 has αφεωνται instead of αφίενται (+2, -2)

6 – 162 has κλινην instead of κλεινην (-1)

7 – no variations

8 – 162 has εθαυμασαν instead of εφοβήθησαν (+5, -6)

9 – 162 has Ματθαιον instead of Μαθθαιον (+1, -1)

10 – no variations

11 – 162 has ειπον instead of ελεγον (+3, -4)

12 – 162 has ὁ Ις­ before ακουσας (+3)

12 – 162 has αυτοις after ειπεν (+6)

13 – 162 has ελεον instead of ελεος (+1, -1)

13 – 162 has εις μετάνοιαν (+12)

14 – 162 contracts Ιωάννου to Ιω

14 – has νηστευουσι instead of νηστευουσιν (-1)

15 – no variations

16 – no variations

17 – 162 has απολουνται instead of απολλυνται (+1, -1)

 

So, compared to the Tyndale House compilation, 162 has 51 non-original letters in Matthew 9:1-17, and is missing 25 original letters, for a total of 76 letters’ worth of corruption.  If we set aside orthographic variants, the following remain: 

1 –  162 has ὁ Ις­ after εμβας (+3)

1 – 162 has το after εις (+2)

2 – 162 has αφεωνται instead of αφίενται (+2, -2)

2 – 162 has σου (+3)

4 – 162 has ιδων instead of ειδως (+1, -2)

4 – 162 has υμεις after τί (+5)

5 – 162 has αφεωνται instead of αφίενται (+2, -2)

8 – 162 has εθαυμασαν instead of εφοβήθησαν (+5, -6)

11 – 162 has ειπον instead of ελεγον (+3, -4)

12 – 162 has ὁ Ις­ before ακουσας (+3)

12 – 162 has αυτοις after ειπεν (+6)

13 – 162 has ελεον instead of ελεος (+1, -1)

13 – 162 has εις μετάνοιαν (+12).

 

And thus, with orthographic variants set aside, 162 has 48 non-original letters in Matthew 9:1-17, and is missing 17 original letters, for a total of 65 letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let’s compare the text of Matthew 9:1-17 in Codex Sinaiticus to the same passage in the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.

SINAITICUS: MATTHEW 9:1-17 compared to Tyndale House GNT.

1 – no  variations

2 – À has κλινης instead of κλεινης (-1)

2 – À has ειδων instead of ιδων (+1)

3 – no variations

4 – À has ϊδων instead of ειδως (+1, -2)

4 – (À has a spelling-correction in καρδι{αι}ϲ but it may have been made during production)

5 – À does not have και after εγειρε (-3)

6 –  À has εχι instead of εχει (-1)

6 – À has κλινην instead of κλεινην (-1)

6 – À has πορευου instead of υπαγε (+7, -5)

7 – no variations

8 – no variations

9 – À does not have εκειθεν (-7)

9 – À does not have και after λεγομενον (-3)

9 -  has λεγι instead of λεγει (-1)

9 – has ακολουθι instead of ακολουθει (-1)

9 – À has ηκολουθει instead of ηκολούθησεν (+2, -4)

10 – À does not have εγένετο αυτου before ανακειμενω (-12)

10 – has ανακειμενω instead of ανακειμενου (+1, -2)

10 – does not have και before ιδου (-3)

10 – À does not have ελθοντες (-8)

10 – has ϲυνανεκιντο instead of ϲυνανεκειντο (-1)

10 – À has μαθητεϲ instead of μαθηταιϲ (+1, -2)

11 – no variations

12 – À has χριαν instead of χρειαν (-1)

12 – has ϊατρω instead of ϊατρου (+1, -2)

13 – À has μαθεται instead of μαθετε (+2, -1)

14 – À has ημιϲ instead of ημειϲ (-1)

14 – (À has πολλα, added by a corrector, in the side-margin)

15 – À is missing ελευσονται δε ημέραι οταν απαρθη απ αυτων ὁ νυμφίος (-43)

16 – À has παλεω instead of παλαιω (+1, -2)

16 – has αιρι instead of αιρει (-1)

16 - À does not have αυτου before απο (-5)

16 – À has γεινεται  instead of γινεται (+1)

17 – À has αλλ instead of αλλα (-1)

17 – À does not have βάλλουσιν (-9)

17 – À has βλητεον after καινουϲ (+7) 

Thus, compared to the text of Matthew 9:1-7 in the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, the text written by the main scribe of Sinaiticus contains 25 non-original letters, and is missing 104 original letters, for a total of 129 letters’ worth of corruption.    

If we take orthographic variants out of the picture, the accuracy of the text written by  Sinaiticus’ main scribe improves:

4 – À has ϊδων instead of ειδως (+1, -2)

5 – À does not have και after εγειρε (-3)

6 – À has πορευου instead of υπαγε (+7, -5)

9 – À does not have εκειθεν (-7)

9 – À does not have και after λεγομενον (-3)

9 – À has ηκολουθει instead of ηκολούθησεν (+2, -4)

10 – À does not have εγένετο αυτου before ανακειμενω (-12)

10 – does not have και before ιδου (-3)

10 – À does not have ελθοντες (-8)

14 – (À has πολλα from a corrector but this correction may have been made after production)

15 – À is missing ελευσονται δε ημέραι οταν απαρθη απ αυτων ὁ νυμφίος (-43)

16 - À does not have αυτου before απο (-5)

17 – À does not have βάλλουσιν (-9)

17 – À has βλητεον after καινουϲ (+7) 

 

So, with orthographic variants set aside (even ϊατρω in verse 12), the text of Sinaiticus has 17 non-original letters, and is missing 103 original letters, for a total of 120 letters’ worth of corruption.  The text of Matthew 9:1-17 written by the main scribe of Codex Sinaiticus is far less accurate than the text of 162, even with orthographic variants removed from consideration – and the comparison is not close.

But the work of the main scribe is not the only factor to consider when it comes to Codex Sinaiticus, because this manuscript had a proof-reader, who often served as a fellow-scribe (even replacing some pages of the manuscript where the main scribe had committed some particularly egregious error).  It is not always easy to tell the difference between the work of this corrector – working before the manuscript had left its scriptorium – and some later correctors.  But my impression is that the main corrector of Codex Sinaiticus was responsible for the following corrections:

● He added, in the upper margin, for verse 10, the εγένετο αυτου that is missing in the main text.

● In the lower margin, he added verse 15’s missing ελευσονται δε ημέραι οταν απαρθη απ αυτων ὁ νυμφίος.  

(I attribute the addition of ελθοντες to a later corrector, and the change in verse 10 from τελωνε to τελωναι I treat as a self-correction by the main scribe.)

With the proof-reader’s input taken into consideration, Sinaiticus’ testimony is much improved:  upon leaving the scriptorium, and setting  aside orthographic variants, the codex contained 17 original letters in Matthew 9:1-17, and was missing 48 original letters, for a total of 65 letters’ worth of corruption.

So which manuscript’s text of Matthew 9:1-17 is better?  The spelling of the main scribe of Sinaiticus is obviously atrocious, but if we set orthographic variants aside, Sinaiticus' accuracy improves substantially.  And if we do not ignore the work of the proof-reader of Codex Sinaiticus, then Codex Sinaiticus’ text of Matthew 9:1-17 has a total of 65 letters’ worth of corruption – meaning that in terms of letters’ worth of non-orthographic corruption, the amount of corruption in Matthew 9:1-17 in À and the amount of corruption in 162 are exactly the same.

(Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.)

           

           

  

 

Matthew 28:19 - Baptism In Whose Name?

Matthew 28:19-20a in Codex F,
beside part of the chapter-list for Mark.

            “This is perhaps a case of late interpolation.”  That was liberal scholar Rudolph Bultmann’s opinion of the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19.  

            Earlier, in 1902, Frederick C. Conybeare – who might be considered the Bart Ehrman of his day – claimed in a detailed essay in The Hibbert Journal (and in 1901 in Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentlich Wissenschaft, pp. 275-288) that he had found patristic evidence against the genuineness of this phrase “so weighty that in [the] future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all.” 

            At this very moment, there are some in the Oneness Pentecostal denomination who similarly regard the threefold formula “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as an early scribal corruption.  The theological impetus for this position is not hard to find:  throughout the book of Acts, Luke reports that the early Christians baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” (2:38), or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16), or “in the name of the Lord” (10:48); the use of a threefold declaration at baptism is never mentioned by Luke. 

            Some Oneness Pentecostals have attempted to resolve this apparent discrepancy by taking a theological step that is not far from – and perhaps indistinguishable from – the early heresy of modalism:  they baptize without such a threefold formula, and insist that the name “Jesus” is the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit.  Others, while theologically greatly distanced from Bultmann and Conybeare, share with them a rejection of the authority of Matthew 28:19 on the grounds that the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is not authentic.  Some Islamic groups similarly reject the genuineness of this phrase.

            Usually when a reading has the support of every Greek manuscript in existence in which a passage is extant – as is the case here at the end of Matthew – there is no text-critical issue and it is accepted as genuine, as a matter of course.  Even Bart Ehrman – who has proposed (like Gordon Fee before him) that First Corinthians 14:34-35, despite having enormous manuscript support, contains a lengthy interpolation – recently wrote, “It is usually thought that Matt. 28:19-20 is referring to the practice in Matthew’s own community, some 50 years after Jesus’ death, not to the words Jesus himself actually spoke.”  (Readers of such comments should understand that when Ehrman employs phrases such as “It is usually thought,” he means, “It is usually thought among my colleagues who deny supernatural events in general.”)  Regarding those who, instead, claim to reject the phrase on text-critical grounds:  what are their grounds? 

            Their go-to source is Eusebius of Caesarea, the influential and not-entirely-orthodox historian of the early 300s, best-known for his composition Ecclesiastical History.  As Conybeare documented, Eusebius utilized Matthew 28:19 seventeen times in ways that indicate that his text of the verse read πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, that is, “As you go, make disciples of all nations in My name.”  Part of Conybeare’s argument that this reading should be given exceptional weight is that Eusebius was stationed in Caesarea, where in the previous generation Origen had enlarged the library with his own manuscripts; thus, it may be reasonably thought that among the manuscripts accessible to Eusebius in the early 300s were some copies from the early 200s, earlier than any existing copies of Matthew 28:19.

            Conybeare’s quotations from Eusebius may have initially appeared to justify his confident assertions, but he was quickly answered by J. R. Wilkinson in The Hibbert Journal in 1902, in the second part of an article titled, Mr. Conybeare’s Textual Theories (beginning on p. 96 of the journal issued in October of 1902, and on p. 571 of the digitally archived copy).  Wilkinson granted that Eusebius used a text in which “in My name” was in the first part of Matthew 28:19, referring to disciple-making, but he reasoned that this does not imply that “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” was absent from the second part of the verse, referring to baptism.     The textual critic Frederick Chase also wrote a response against Conybeare’s approach in 1905 in the Journal of Theological Studies (beginning on p. 481). 

            A comprehensive, and decisive, answer against Conybeare’s proposal appeared in 1923 in Bernard Henry Cuneo’s published dissertation, The Lord’s Command to Baptise:  An Historico-Critical Investigation With Special Reference to the Works of Eusebius of Caesarea.  Cuneo systematically scrutinized Conybeare’s quotations from Eusebius, one by one, along with other quotations, and showed that Eusebius, like some other patristic writers, tended to limit his quotations to the segments of Scripture that were relevant to the topic that he was discussing at a given point.  

            For example, Cuneo examples Eusebius’ statement in Ecclesiastical History 3:5 and considers the development of Eusebius’ argument in which the quotation occurs:  Eusebius quoted Matthew 28:19a, not to say something about baptism, but to confirm a parenthetical point; in the course of describing the Roman siege of Jerusalem, he writes:

            “. . . because the Jews continued to persecute His disciples, by stoning Stephen, beheading James the brother of John, and putting to death James the bishop of Jerusalem; and because they afflicted the other apostles so severely that they fled from Palestine and began to preach the Gospel to all the nations – imbued with the power of Christ who had said to them, “Going, make disciples of all the nations in my name” – and when all the Christians had left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, then the divine vengeance visited upon Jerusalem the crimes of which that city had been guilty against Christ and his disciples.”

            In Demonstration of the Gospel 1:6, Eusebius wrote, “Our Lord and Savior, 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.’”  Here we do not see the middle of verse 19 because it is not pertinent to Eusebius’ present subject, whereas the beginning and end are pertinent. 

            Although this frugality may seem strange nowadays – that is, modern readers may understandably ask, “Why not just quote the whole verse?” – we ought to remember that nobody quoted from the New Testament in terms of chapter-and-verse divisions as we know them until the mid-1500s.  Quoting only what needed to be quoted in order to support a particular point was common in ancient times; Eusebius shows the same tendency toward brevity in his quotations of Matthew 11:27, 16:18, etc.

            Cuneo’s cumulative case is so effective that I recommend it to everyone who might encounter echoes of Conybeare’s argument; The Lord’s Command to Baptise is available online as a free download at Google Books.  Archive.org also has a copy.  Cuneo reminds readers about other patristic evidence in favor of the inclusion of the words “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  For example:

● Didache, chapter 7 (early 100s):  “Concerning baptism, baptize thus:  having first rehearsed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water.  But if you have no running water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot in cold, then in warm.  But if you have neither, pour water three times on the head ‘in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.’”

● Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, part 17 (c. 180):  concluding a series of proof-texts supporting his contention that it was not a Christ-persona, but the Holy Spirit, who descended upon Jesus:  “He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

● Tertullian, De Baptismo, ch. 13 (c. 200):  “The law of baptism was enjoined and its ritual prescribed.  ‘Go,’ He says, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’  The addition to this law of the regulation: ‘Except one be born again of water and spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,’ bound faith to the necessity of baptism.  Consequently from that time all believers were baptized.”

● Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum ch. 20 (c. 200):  “He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.”  

● Hippolytus, Contra Noetum, ch. 14 (early 200s):  “The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy (i.e., disposition) and the will of the Father, that is, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in no other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead:  ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’  And by this He showed that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly.”

● Acts of Thomas 9:4 (early 200s):  “And the apostle, having taken oil, and poured it over their head, and salved and anointed them, began to say, ‘Come, holy name of Christ, which is above every name; come, power of the Most High . . .  come, Holy Spirit, and purify their reins and heart, and seal them in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.’” 

● Participants at the Seventh Council of Carthage (257), which was focused on the subject of baptism, included

            Lucius of Castra Galbae, who quoted Christ’s words from Matthew 28:18-19, including “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”   

            Munnulus of Girba, who stated, “our Lord says, “Go ye and baptize the nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

            Euchratius of Thence, who said that Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, “has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying, “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

            Vincentius of Thibaris, who, in addition to alluding to Mark 16:15-18, said that the Lord said, in another place, “Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

            Cuneo also spent several pages showing that Eusebius of Caesarea was indeed the author of Against Marcellus (336/337) and A Letter to the Caesareans Concerning the Council of Nicea.  In the second composition, Eusebius introduces and repeats his own creed, which, he says, was read at the Council of Nicea in the presence of Emperor Constantine:

            “As we have received from the bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisms, and when we received the holy laver [i.e., at baptism], and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:

            “We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible.  And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost.”

            This is followed by an addition affirmation: 

            “Believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’  Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held previously, and we maintain this faith unto the death, condemning every  godless heresy.”    

            In another composition, the rarely cited Syriac Theophania, Eusebius of Caesarea made a full quotation of Matthew 28:17-20 in Book IV, chapter 8:     “After His resurrection from the dead, all of them [i.e., the eleven apostles], being together as they had been commanded, went to Galilee, as He had said to them. But, when they saw Him, some worshipped Him, but others doubted.  But He drew near to them, spoke with them, and said, ‘All power in heaven and earth, is given to me of my Father.  Go ye and make disciples of all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And, behold!  I am with you always even to the end of the world.’  Observe now, in these things, the consideration and caution evinced by the disciples . . . .”     

            (In the same composition, which its translator, Samuel Lee, translated from a Syriac manuscript which had been obtained by Henry Tattam at the Monastery of the Blessed Virgin in the Nitrian Desert – a manuscript which Lee assigned to a period no later than the 400s – Eusebius explicitly quotes Matthew 28:19a with “in My name” as part of the text, saying in Book 5 chapter 46, “It was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make disciples of all nations, but with this excellent addition which He delivered, specifically, ‘in My name.’”)

            In addition to demolishing Conybeare’s case against the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” Cuneo offered an explanation for the presence of the words “in My name” in Eusebius’ text of Matthew 28:19a:  it is a simple harmonization drawn from Luke 24:47.
            This introduces a fresh subject:  the abundance of alterations, harmonistic or otherwise, that are clustered in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.  These passages were among the most-used parts of the Gospels in early church-services, and were thus especially vulnerable to early liturgical influence.  Here are a few examples:
            ● In the Peshitta version of Matthew, Matthew 28:18 features an insertion drawn from John 20:21; after the usual words of the verse, the Peshitta adds, “As the Father sent Me, so also I send you.”  (Codex Θ also has this feature.)

            ● In the Alexandrian text of Luke 24:42, there is no mention of honeycomb.  The words και απο μελσσίου κηριου could have been accidentally skipped due to early scribal inattentiveness; και follows κηριου in the next sentence.  But another possibility is that these words – supported by Tertullian, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, the Vulgate, the Armenian version, etc.  – were removed intentionally to avoid incorporating honey into annual Easter-time worship-services. 

 

Extra words appear in the text of
Luke 24:43 in Codex K.

           ● In Luke 24:43, after the usual statement that Jesus “took and ate in their presence,” several significant manuscripts – including K, Θ, Π*, and members of f¹³, as well as the Vulgate and, according to Tregelles, the Curetonian Syriac and the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, also say, “and gave the rest to them.”  (Θ does not include “and.”)  This phrase may have been added when and where the passage had been interpreted somewhat mystically – the fish in the narrative being seen as congruent to the presence of Christ, ΙΧΘΥΣ – and when this point was reached in the Scripture-reading in the worship-service, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper commenced.    

            ● In Luke 24:36, after Jesus’ appearance in the midst of the disciples, He says to them, “Peace to you!”  In a small number of Greek manuscripts (including uncials G and P), and in the Vulgate, Jesus says a bit more; He goes on to say, “It is I; do not be afraid.”  These extra words – drawn from John 6:20 – are supported, according to the UBS apparatus, by the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version, and by Ambrose and Augustine (in Contra Felicem Manichaeum).   In addition, in Codex W, “It is I; do not be afraid” appears before “Peace to you.”   

            All these witnesses may echo early Easter-time liturgical arrangements of the blended-together Gospel-accounts.  An early attempt to remove the intruding words appears to have gone too far; in several Old Latin manuscripts and in Codex Bezae, the entire phrase – “and said to them, “Peace to you” – is missing.  (This is one of the “Western Non-interpolations” which appear in Luke 24.)  Another possibility is that the phrase was skipped by accident.

            The worship-services of the early churches had a detectable impact upon the text of the New Testament.  But the impact of the text of the New Testament upon the early churches was far greater.  As far as the use of the words, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” are concerned, there was one reason for the early Christians to use these words:  they were attributed to Christ in every copy of the Gospel of Matthew.

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.