Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :

NOTE: This article or series has not been updated recently. As such, it may possibly contain some outdated information, and/or ideas and beliefs which I no longer embrace, or which have changed to some degree.



As I concluded in part six, Jesus told His Disciples to use
His Name, and not the triune name, which is exactly what we
see them doing in the Book of Acts. Consider these rather
clear, indisputable examples:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 2:38, KJV

"Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I
have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth
rise up and walk."
Acts 3:6, KJV

"And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at
all nor teach in the name of Jesus."
Acts 4:18, KJV

"And to him they agreed: and when they had called the
apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should
not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go."
Acts 5:40, KJV

"(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"
Acts 8:16, KJV

"But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and
declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and
that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at
Damascus in the name of Jesus . . . And he spake boldly in
the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the
Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:27, 29, KJV

"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the
Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
Acts 10:48, KJV

"And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned
and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus
Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour."
Acts 16:18, KJV

"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus."
Acts 19:5, KJV

"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Acts 22:16, KJV

There is another strong reason, which is directly related to
the ancient manuscripts, which should cause anyone who has an
honest heart, a sincere desire, and a true hunger for knowing
Scriptural truth, to doubt the authenticity of Matthew 28:19,
as we commonly read it today; and that is the following. As I
noted earlier several times, according to my online research,
prior to the Fourth Century, when the Roman Catholic Church
began its rise to power and worldly affluence, there are no
known original manuscripts of the Gospels, or autographs as
they are called, as written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
I offered several reasons why this is so; namely, the natural
process of decay due to time, Jewish persecution, and Roman
persecution. Every online source I examined offered one or
more of these reasons for the absence of the autographs, as
written by the original First Century followers of Christ.

What troubles me about this assumption, is the fact that even
today, ancient manuscripts are still being found, which date
back to the First Century, or even earlier. Undoubtedly, one
of the most well-known examples is the Dead Sea Scrolls. The
Dead Sea Scrolls, as you may already know, were discovered
between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves that are located near
the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the
northwest shore of the Dead Sea. These famous Scrolls consist
of about nine hundred ancient documents, including some texts
from the Hebrew Bible -- the Tanakh -- or the Old Testament.
The Scrolls do not contain any books from the New Testament.
The Scrolls are written in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic
-- which was Jesus' language -- and Greek. Most of the Dead
Sea Scrolls are written on parchment, while some are also on
papyrus. But what I personally find most intriguing about the
Dead Sea Scrolls story, is that they've been dated from about
150 BC to 70 AD. That makes them over 2,000 years old.

A few other examples of manuscripts dating back to that time
period include the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius
Josephus -- such as his "The Jewish War" and "Antiquities Of
The Jews" -- the writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo,
and the writings of Roman knight, (Equestrian), military man,
geographer and explorer, Pliny the Elder, who was a friend of
Emperor Vespasian, at the time that Jerusalem was destroyed
in 70 AD. Pliny the Elder also witnessed the violent eruption
of Mount Vesuvius, which resulted in the utter destruction of
Pompeii and Herculaneum. Historical documents state that it
was a result of breathing in the toxic fumes from Vesuvius
that Pliny the Elder died. His most famous literary work is
entitled "Naturalis Historia", or "Natural History".

Can you see my point? The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are just as
old as, or even older than, the Gospels of the New Testament,
and other New Testament writings, still exist. Granted, they
are not all in the best of shape -- some have crumbled due to
ignorance, mistreatment or age -- but enough of them survived
in the caves of Qumran so that scientists have been able to
use different scientific methods to carefully extract their
historic contents; and it's taken them years to do so. So the
huge question in my mind is how the Dead Sea Scrolls managed
to survive until our current time, two thousand years later,
yet all of the original manuscripts, as written by the First
Century Apostles and Disciples, were destroyed within two or
three hundred years, so that none existed by the time of the
Fourth Century. Should we simply rely upon the common belief
that the persecution of the Early Christians, first by their
own Jewish brethren, and later by the Romans, was so severe,
and so thorough, that all of the autographs -- the original
manuscripts -- were totally destroyed, leaving us only with
a few scattered copies, and second hand accounts, that are
found in extant texts?

Some scholars, such as William Barclay Swete, have suggested
that no one at that time realized the value of the original
manuscripts of the Apostles, which contributed to their quick
destruction and disappearance by the Fourth Century. I have
some doubts about this. Surely the First Century Christians
understood the importance of the original Gospels, as well as
the Epistles, as penned by their original authors, and would
have gone to great lengths in order to preserve them for the
sake of future generations just as the Essenes so wisely did.
Furthermore, we must remember that we are not just talking
about one copy of each Gospel and each Epistle. It seems only
natural that many copies of the Apostolic writings would have
been made to distribute to the different churches throughout
Israel, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. If this is the
case, one would suppose that at least some of these original
copies, if not the original texts themselves, that is, the
autographs, would have still survived in some places up until
the Fourth Century; yet historians and scholars say that this
is not so.

I simply find this strange. While some people may accuse me
of being a conspiracy theorist, I can't help but wonder if
there is more to this story than we are being told. In fact,
it fascinates me to even consider the possibility that some
of the First Century autographs may still exist, locked away
and long hidden in the vaults of some church, institution, or
private individual. Might the Roman Catholic Church know, or
perhaps the Jews, or someone else? If there is any truth to
this possibility, the obvious question is why they would do
this. Well, consider this. If those ancient documents contain
information which they don't want us to know, or information
which contradicts and exposes the falsehood of doctrines that
are currently being taught, wouldn't it be smart to keep them
under wraps?

Before you simply dismiss this possibility, allow me to share
with you an important piece of information that will help you
to better understand why I have gone to such great lengths to
share with you all of this information regarding the ancient
texts, as they relate to the development of the Bible. In one
of the oldest extant (or existing) Biblical texts of the New
Testament, that is, the Codex Sinaitic Syriac, (also known as
the Sinaitic Palimpsest), which contains a Syriac translation
of the four Gospels that predates the Peshitta, (the standard
Syriac translation of the Bible), the last page of the Gospel
of Matthew is missing. This codex was also discovered at the
aforementioned Monastery of Saint Catherine in Egypt, and has
been dated to the late Second Century. Why is this document
missing the last page of the Gospel of Matthew, where the
controversial verse, Matthew 28:19, should be found?

To further add to the mystery regarding the last page missing
from the Sinaitic Syriac version of the Gospel of Matthew, it
is worth mentioning that Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, who
was Professor of Theology at the University of Oxford during
the early 20th century, and who in 1909 and 1910 authored two
important books regarding textual criticism entitled "History
Of New Testament Criticism: A Study Of Christian Origins" and
"Myth, Magic, And Morals" which was later republished as "The
Origins of Christianity", likewise mentions that the last page
of the Gospel of Matthew is also missing from the oldest Latin
texts. Why is this same page, which contains Matthew 28:19,
also mysteriously missing from the oldest Latin texts?

Is it merely a coincidence that the same page is missing from
both of these texts, a page which can prove or disprove, the
reliability of the baptismal triune phrase?

In addition, in the aforementioned books, Professor Conybeare
concurs with Eusebius Pamphilius, and clearly states that the
baptismal and triune phrase that is found in Matthew 28:19 is
spurious text. Taking the debate even a step further, in the
fifth chapter of "History Of New Testament Criticism", which
is entitled "Textual Criticism", Professor Conybeare offers a
lengthy exposé in which he agrees with many Biblical scholars
going back as far as the Fourth Century, who regarded both
Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7-8 -- the other verses which some
say supposedly support the "Holy Trinity" -- as spurious text.
Conybeare concurs that parts of these verses were added later
by the baptismal regenerationists of the Catholic Church, in
order to support the false doctrines of water baptism and the
"Holy Trinity".

Concerning 1 John 5:7-8, the inserted spurious text is known
in scholarly circles as the "Comma Johanneum". This "comma",
or clause, consists of the words "in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there
are three that bear witness in earth". In other words, at the
current time, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible
states as follows:

"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."
1 John 5:7-8, KJV

However, based on a great deal of early manuscript evidence,
it is believed that in its original form, 1 John 5:7-8 really
states as follows:

"For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

I find it troublesome that the "Comma Johanneum" is included
in the 1611 edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
In his "History Of New Testament Criticism", Conybeare states
the following, which not only explains how much doubt existed
regarding the reliability of the "Comma Johanneum" in earlier
centuries, but also in what manner it came to be included in
the King James Bible:

----- Begin Quote -----

In the first printed edition of the New Testament, called
the Complutensian, prepared at Alcala in Spain in 1514 by
Cardinal Francis Ximenes, the words here italicised were
included, having been translated from the Latin text into
Greek; for the Greek MSS. used did not contain them. They are
only found in two Greek MSS., one of the fifteenth the other
of the sixteenth century. About 400 other Greek codices from
the fourth century down to the fourteenth ignore them. All
MSS. of the old Latin version anterior to Jerome lack them,
and in the oldest copies even, of Jerome's recension of the
Latin text, called the Vulgate, they are conspicuously
absent.

Erasmus's first edition of the Greek Testament, in 1516,
omitted the verse, as also did the second; but in 1522 he
issued a third edition containing it. Robert Stephens also
inserted it in his edition of 1546, which formed the basis of
all subsequent editions of the Greek Testament until
recently, and is known as the Received Text, or Textus
Receptus.

In 1670 Sandius, an Arian, assailed the verse, as also did
Simon, a learned Roman Catholic priest, in his Histoire
Critique du Nouveau Testament, part i., chap. 18, about
twenty years later. He was followed by Sir Isaac Newton, who,
in a learned dissertation published after his death in 1754,
strengthened Simon's arguments.

Gibbon, in his thirty-seventh chapter, sarcastically wrote:

The memorable text which asserts the unity of the Three who
bear witness in Heaven is condemned by the universal silence
of the orthodox fathers, ancient versions, and authentic
manuscripts. After the invention of printing, the editors of
the Greek Testament yielded to their own prejudices, or those
of the times; and the pious fraud, which was embraced with
equal zeal at Rome and Geneva, has been infinitely multiplied
in every country and every language of modern Europe.

----- End Quote -----

In the previous quotes, Professor Conybeare is referring to
noted British historian Edward Gibbon, who during the latter
part of the eighteenth century authored a multi-volume work
entitled "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire". In the six-volume work, Gibbon partially attributes
the fall of the Roman Empire to the spread of Christianity
throughout the empire.

Regarding Sir Isaac Newton, Professor Conybeare is referring
to Newton's 1690 treatise entitled "An Historical Account Of
Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture". In this dissertation,
Isaac Newton clearly reveals his personal thoughts regarding
the corruption that is found in 1 John 5:7-8, when he states:

----- Begin Quote -----

"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about
the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough
after it, this text of the 'three in heaven' was never once
thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the
main text for the business and would assuredly have been so
too with them, had it been in their books."

----- End Quote -----

From the information I have gathered, the primary reason why
Desiderius Erasmus chose to omit the "Comma Johanneum" text
from the first two editions of his Greek "Novum Testamentum",
is simply because the phrase wasn't found in any of the Greek
manuscripts which were at his disposal. However, according to
some sources, which I personally do not trust, by the time he
was ready to release the third edition of his New Testament,
Erasmus had been presented with two codices which include the
controversial text, known as the "Comma Johanneum". One codex
is the Codex Britannicus. The other codex, at least so claim
some sources, is the Codex Montfortianus, which is now found
at the Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland.

At first glance, it may appear as if including the spurious
"Comma Johanneum" in the First Epistle of John was the right
thing to do; however, before you embrace such a conclusion,
allow me to share with you the remainder of this interesting
story. As it turns out, the Codex Montfortianus and the Codex
Britannicus are not two separate manuscripts; they are one
and the same. Erasmus referred to it as Britannicus. However,
later, during the Seventeenth Century, when it fell into the
possession of one Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, a French
priest and preacher, who, sadly, is in large part responsible
for the false practice of Mariology -- the glorification and
worship of Mary as "Mediatrix" and "Co-Redemptrix" -- it was
assigned the new name of Codex Montfortianus, and has been
known by this name ever since.

To cast further doubt upon Erasmus' decision to include the
"Comma Johanneum" in the third edition of his New Testament,
or "Novum Testamentum", let us consider the actual history of
the controversial Codex Britannicus. Research suggests that,
in reality, the Codex Britannicus may have been nothing less
than an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. According to
available information, it has been said that the reason why
Erasmus finally chose to include the "Comma Johanneum" in the
third edition of his New Testament, is because he had stated
that if he could be provided with even one Greek manuscript
which contained the questionable spurious text, he would add
it to his New Testament. It was at this point that the Roman
Catholic Church saw its opportunity to have the triune phrase
inserted into our beloved Bible. No Greek manuscripts existed
which contained the "Comma Johanneum", so they simply had one
of their Franciscan friars, by the name of Froy, create one.
According to what I have read, this friar made a copy of a
Tenth Century manuscript, which didn't contain the spurious
text, and then inserted the "Comma Johanneum" from a Latin
manuscript, thus creating what became known as Britannicus.

Apparently, being a man of his word, and having been given
this falsified "evidence", Desiderius Erasmus thus chose to
include the "Comma Johanneum" in the third edition of his
"Novum Testamentum". However, it should be noted that in his
Annotations, Erasmus made it clear that he still doubted the
authenticity of the "Comma Johanneum" text. One source also
states that Erasmus never made such a promise, and that it
never occurred to him that the Codex Britannicus might have
been created in order to purposely deceive him. Rather, the
source states that Erasmus included the "Comma Johanneum" in
the third edition of his New Testament, because he did not
wish to appear unorthodox, (or non-Catholic?), which might
negatively affect the acceptance of his "Novum Testamentum".

Whatever the truth may be, the end result is that in spite of
his personal doubts regarding the "Comma Johanneum", Erasmus
nevertheless included it in his "Novum Testamentum". As we've
seen, this work later became known as the Textus Receptus and
eventually formed the basis for the Tyndale Bible, as well as
the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible and more.
Having said that, lacking these verses -- Matthew 28:19 and
1 John 5:7-8 -- there is absolutely no support in the Bible
for the baptismal triune phrase, or for the "Holy Trinity".
They are concoctions of the Roman Catholic Church, plain and
simple, which have been erroneously promoted for centuries.

Let me reiterate again, that the earliest known copies of the
Latin Vulgate Bible did not contain the "Comma Johanneum". In
addition, early so-called "Church Fathers" such as Jerome and
Clement of Alexandria, and others, did not mention it, and it
is not found in important manuscripts which form the actual
basis of the Roman Catholic Bible, such as the corrupt Codex
Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus. Oddly
enough, these same manuscripts do include Matthew 28:19 as we
know it today.

Furthermore, it speaks volumes that out of the many thousands
of manuscripts in existence which contain a Greek version of
the New Testament, only eight of these contain the spurious
text referred to as the "Comma Johanneum". While Trinitarian
supporters like to point to these few manuscripts, in their
desperate attempt to lend support to their wayward doctrine,
wisdom dictates that we should give preference to the wider
body of evidence against acceptance of the "Comma Johanneum".

Furthermore, the vast majority of these corrupted texts that
do contain the "Comma Johanneum", date from many centuries
after Jesus Christ and His Apostles walked the Earth, and
wrote their manuscripts. Most of the corrupted manuscripts
in fact date from the Middle Ages and forward. In short, the
Roman Catholic Church has had plenty of time to corrupt the
Holy Scriptures to their liking, in order to promote their
many false doctrines, which only serve to enslave people to
their church.

Ironically, on June 2, 1927, to the chagrin of Trinitarians,
Pope Pius XI decreed that the "Comma Johanneum" was open to
dispute. Furthermore, following the counsel of the Second
Vatican Council, the 1979 edition of the Vulgate Bible, known
as the "Nova Vulgata", doesn't include the "Comma Johanneum".
The Nova Vulgata, which was republished in 1986, is currently
the official Latin version of the Bible of the Roman Catholic
Church, and has the full support of the Holy See. In short,
the popes of Rome have in reality, and quietly, gone back to
the view which was held by early "Church Fathers"; which is
that the text which was inserted into 1 John 5:7-8, that is,
the "Comma Johanneum", is spurious text. Now if only certain
dogmatic Protestant denominations and believers would follow
suit, and reject this text.

So with the ouster of the "Comma Johanneum" from the official
Roman Catholic Bible, what this actually means is that aside
from Matthew 28:19, which is already in serious dispute, the
only support that Catholic Trinitarians have for the trinity
doctrine, is the word of their church, and that isn't saying
much. The time for the false Trinitarian doctrine to be done
away with, has come.

So, let us return briefly to our discussion of Matthew 28:19.
Thus far in this series, we have relied upon several methods
of investigation in order to discover the truth regarding the
validity of water baptism, the baptismal triune phrase that
is found in Matthew 28:19, and the triune phrase that is also
found in the First Epistle of John. We have discussed ancient
manuscripts, different Bible versions, and offered quotations
from various sources, such as from the patristic writings of
early Christian writers, and from modern theologians and
scholars.

Furthermore, as is my regular custom in most of my articles,
we have also relied upon internal evidence, that is to say,
we have compared what different Scriptures say, in order to
arrive at the truth. There is additional Scriptural evidence
which convinces me that the version of Matthew 28:19, as was
promoted by Eusebius, is really the correct one. By simply
comparing the actual structure of certain verses, we can see
how much Matthew 28:19, in its current form, does not fit in
with all of the rest, and appears out of place. Previously,
we noted the importance of the phrase "in my name"; but let's
re-examine a few verses from part six one more time, because
they are an excellent example of comparative, or internal,
criticism, and there is something in them which you may have
missed earlier. Here they are:

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said
unto you."
John 14:26, KJV

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved."
Acts 4:12, KJV

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost:"
Matthew 28:19 KJV

There is something very much out of harmony in the previous
three verses. Are you able to see it? If Jesus clearly told
His followers that the Father would send the Holy Ghost "in
my name" -- meaning Jesus' Name -- and if Peter preached in
the Book of Acts "for there is none other name under heaven
given among men, whereby we must be saved", meaning the Name
of Jesus Christ, does it make any sense, and would it not in
fact be in total contradiction to Jesus supposedly using the
triune phrase at the end of Matthew chapter twenty-eight? In
other words, saying that we are saved in the Name of Jesus,
and we receive the Holy Spirit in the Name of Jesus, (which
is what true baptism is, the baptism by fire), but suddenly
turning around and saying that we must be baptized in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is
very confusing, as well as quite contradictory. Only one can
be correct. If you still don't understand this, please keep
reading, and you will see the light in a moment.

To insist that the trinity phrase that is found at the end of
Matthew 28:19 is inspired text, is really to imply that Jesus
contradicted Himself. He clearly said in John 14:26 that the
Holy Spirit would be sent "in my name", but now He is saying
"Oops . . . sorry, I goofed! The Holy Spirit will actually be
sent in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost." As we have already seen, and as John the Baptist
clearly stated, Jesus came to baptize with fire; so even if
we just accept the baptism part of Matthew 28:19, it still
does not make sense, because if we apply the true meaning of
that word, as revealed to us by John the Baptist, then Jesus
is saying that we must receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost
in the triune name, and not just in His Name, as He had said
in John 14:26. Do you understand? If not, please read this
paragraph again.

As we saw earlier in this series, nowhere else do we see the
triune phrase being used in the Bible; and when people were
saved and filled with the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts, it
was with the Name of Jesus, and nothing more, exactly as the
Lord had promised them. In short, all of the verses regarding
baptism which are found in the Book of Acts are in agreement
with John 14:6, because they baptized in Jesus's Name, and
people received the Holy Spirit in Jesus' Name. On the other
hand, none of the baptismal verses in the Book of Acts agree
with what Jesus supposedly stated in Matthew 28:19, because
no one was ever baptized, or received the Holy Spirit, in the
triune name; that is to say, in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

We find some additional internal evidence which casts doubt
on the accepted wording of Matthew 28:19 by comparing the
final verses which are found in several of the Gospels, as
well as at the beginning of the Book of Acts, and in a few
other places as well. With the following similar verses, you
will again see how the current rendering of Matthew 28:19 is
completely out of place:

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new
tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any
deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on
the sick, and they shall recover."
Mark 16:15-18, KJV

"And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved
Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Luke 24:46-47, KJV

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my
Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said
this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye
the Holy Ghost:"
John 20:21-22, KJV

"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is
come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the
uttermost part of the earth."
Acts 1:8, KJV

"And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to
the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By
whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to
the faith among all nations, for his name:"
Romans 1:4-5, KJV

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world. Amen."
Matthew 28:19-20, KJV

Please go to part eight for the conclusion of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.