INTERPOLATION Matthew 28

[Admin]

Xx

[Admin]

QUESTION: Is there any factual evidence to conclude that Matthew 28: 19 is and interpolation or an alteration?

It cerainly might give raise to questions if we had a comparable bible manuscripts with Matthew 28:19 either missing or in an abbreviated version, however this is not the case. The oldest surviving fragments of Matthew we have are of chapter 23; parts of Matthew 13 and 14, part of Matthew 21; and the Magdalen Papyrus which consists of few verses from Matthew 3. The oldest complete bible manuscripts we have date from the 4th and 5th centuries and most respected of these, namely the codex Sinaiticu, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus all contain verse 19 in its present form.

We have many thousands of later portions of the bible with varying degrees of variations, but to my knowledge (I will stand corrected if someone produces one) verse 19 has never been documented as existing except in its present form. There is nothing suspect of not having a fragment of any particular verse as by defintion fragments are incomplete. Short of evidence of alteration in the fragments we do have, anything more is unfounded speculation.

To argue that we have no such manuscripts at present but that they did indeed existe but were subsequently wiped from the historical record is rather like charging a woman with murdering her husband without producing a body or any evvidence that she has ever been married.

In short, we have not a shred of evidence in the existing bible schools of a "short version" of verse 19 as being in the original text of Matthew, much less the verse being an interpolation.


Non-biblical references. Outside of the bible manuscripts there is also sufficient evidence that the instructions found in Matthew 28:19 were a part of the Christian tradition well before the council of Nicea. The outline of the principal Christian teachings known as the Didache (or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) dated to the first century states that new converts be taught and then baptized "in the name of the Fatehr, and of the Son and of the Holy spirit" and numerous pre-nicean church fathers refer to it in full including Tertullian (2nd Century) a hundred years before Nicea! It is not unreasonable then to conclude this formula originated directly from the teachcing of Christ and/or from their knowlede of existing scripture.

Where did this idea of a short version of the formula come from? Fourth century Christian writer Eusebius in Demonstratio 3.6, 7(bis) wrote a shorterned version of what is sometimes refered to a the baptisimal formula omitting "father, son and holy spirit" in favor of "me". It should be noted however this is not a bible translation or a copy of the bible, it is a study (and defence) of the biblical text and it would be premature to conclude his every reference to scriputre was a complete and exact quotation. Indeed the same series of works demonstrates not only that Eusebius did abbreviate texts but that he was fully aware of and refered to the formula in its present full form; if the long version of Matthew 28:19 were an interpolation or an alteration and he knew it, why would he refer to the full version As with being charged with the murder of someone that never exited, those that know how the bible was transmitted know that had a Matthew penned a version of chapter 28 without verse 19 there would normally be e


See quotations here
debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=889429#889429

List of manuscripts
www.csntm.org/Manuscript

Matthw 28:19
www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/01/heretics-united-defense-of-textual.html
hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12794/was-the-text-of-matthew-2819-changed
inthefineprint.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/the-oldest-manuscripts-3/