Resource needed

[Diatheke76]

Which resources would you recommend to study the so called “Trinitarian Formula” in Matthew 28:19? Some argue for a shorter reading “...baptizing them in my name...” instead of “...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...”

 

Thanks in advance for any recommendations

[A. Smith]

Do you read greek well? If so, you'll do no better than Allison in the ICC commentary and Nolland in the NIGTC. 

[ukfraser]

i use comfort to get a feeling for what text variants exist and are used by different english translations

 

https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=Comfort%20Text%20Commentary

 

Alternatively you may want to use metzger (or both)

 

https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=Metzger+Text+Commentary

 

The intro to confort states

The purpose of this work is to provide scholars, pastors, students, and serious Bible readers with a commentary on the variant readings in the New Testament that have significance for Bible interpretation and Bible translation—and to do so in a format that is communicative and informative to English readers as well as those who know Greek.

 

The above doesn't deal with the debate in your question, however these resources give an overview of what textual variations are available and i would suggest you get at least one if you havent already.

 

In this case comfort is quiet on verse 19 so my reading is that there are no variations and na 28 includes father son and holy spirit (πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος)

 

Where have you come across the 'some argue'? Do they site their references?

[Diatheke76]

“Some argue,” meaning A ”Messianic Jew” friend, who isn’t even a Jew says the trinitarian formula was added later by the catholic church. He claims there’s no such thing as OT and NT, that that distinction is part of the “replacement doctrine” also introduced by the Catholic Church in a.d. 325 during the first counsil of Nicea. My WBC on Matthew seems to lean towards the shorter reading.

[ukfraser]

I found these references in the net notes which you may want to follow up on.

 

tc Although some scholars have denied that the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission was a part of the original text of Matthew, there is no ms support for their contention. F. C. Conybeare, “The Eusebian Form of the Text of Mt. 28:19, ” ZNW 2 (1901): 275-88, based his view on a faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotations of this text. The shorter reading has also been accepted, on other grounds, by a few other scholars. For discussion (and refutation of the conjecture that removes this baptismal formula), see B. J. Hubbard, The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning (SBLDS 19), 163–64, 167–75; and Jane Schaberg, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (SBLDS 61), 27–29.

 

(SBLDS = society of biblical literature dissertation series)

 

If you havent got net, this is another resource well worth getting just for the excellent and extensive notes!!!!!! (But it is in a lot of the packages so you may already have it)

 

https://www.accordancebible.com/store/details/?pid=NET

Edited October 19, 2018 by ukfraser

[Diatheke76]

Thanks ukfraser! I’ve been reading other resources and it seems that aside from Eusebius, there’s no actual textual evidence that supports this view. Thanks for your help!

[Diatheke76]

Do you read greek well? If so, you'll do no better than Allison in the ICC commentary and Nolland in the NIGTC.

My Greek is modest. I have Nolland, but I don’t have Allison. Nolland doesn’t get into much detail either. I’ve searched other resources but it boils down to no textual evidence against the Trinitarian formula, only speculation.

Thanks!

[HansK]

See this article, available on the net:

 

F.F. Bruce, “The End of the First Gospel,” The Evangelical Quarterly 12 (1940): 203-214. 

 

F.F. Bruce, "The End of the First Gospel," - Biblical Studies.org.ukhttps://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1st-gospel_bruce.pdf

Edited October 19, 2018 by HansK

[Diatheke76]

Super article, HansK! I greatly appreciate it. It reaffirms what the others are saying. Well done!