SLOVENSKÉ PREKLADY BIBLIE

[Dušan Seberíni]

Viete koľko slovenských prekladov Biblie máme?
Viete koľko z nich sa denne používa?
A poznáte ich hodnoty?
Poznáte ich plusy a mínusy?

Tu sa dá všeličo dozvedieť, mnoho naučiť a mnoho získať.
Samozrejme bude zaujímavé, dozvedieť sa všeličo aj o českých prekladoch.

[Dušan Seberíni]

Zoznam v súčasnosti používaných slovenských prekladov


Evanjelický
BIBLIA Písmo sväté Starej a Novej zmluvy
Vydala Slovenská evanjelická cirkev A.V. v ČSSR 1979

Ekumenický (+ Deut)
Biblia - Slovenský ekumenický preklad
Slovenská biblická spoločnosť 2007

Katolícky Vulgata (+ Deut)
SVÄTÉ PÍSMO
Starého i nového zákona
Slovenský ústav svätého Cyrila a Metoda,
Rím 1995

Katolícky Porúbčan (len NZ)
Nový zákon
spracoval Štefan Porúbčan
Slovenský ústav sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Ríme,
Rím 1968

Katolícky Botekov (+ Deut
SVÄTÉ PÍSMO
s komentármi a margináliami Jeruzalemskej Biblie
preložil Anton Botek
Dobrá kniha Trnava, 2012

Roháčkov
SVÄTÁ BIBLIA
preložil Prof. Jozef Roháček
revidované vydanie
Vydala Biblická spoločnosť
UBS 1980

Košov
NOVÝ TESTAMENT
Nový preklad s príručným slovníkom
Kingston Bible Trust 1983

Nádej pre každého
NOVÝ ZÁKON - NÁDEJ PRE KAŽDÉHO
preložila Ružena Dvořáková-Žiaranová a Pavol Kondáč
Medzinárodná biblická spoločnosť 1993

Pavlíkov preklad
NOVÝ ZÁKON
Vydavateľstvo Pavlík - Records, Tvrdošín 1998

Preklad nového sveta Svätých písiem
Preložené z revidovaného anglického vydania
vydal Watchtower Bible And Tract Society, New York
Tlač: Germany 1991

[Karol Schneider]

V danej veci je dobre skusit si niektore verse v Biblii porovnavat trebars aj cez tento porovnavac, kde by mali byt Dusan vsetky tebou uvedene preklady (opravujem vsetky tebou menovane tam nie su).

http://www.obohu.cz/b/index.php?styl=PR ... =1&lang=sk

Za moje predchadzajuce ostrejsie slova kritiky sa ti ospravedlnujem a dufam, ze dalej sa nam podari udrzat debatu v co najviac vecnej rovine, aby mohla byt budujucim prinosom pre kazdeho z nas.

"13 Preto už nesúďme jeden druhého, ale radšej sa rozhodnite, že nebudete dávať bratovi dôvod na potknutie alebo príčinu na zakopnutie. 14 Viem a som presvedčený v Pánu Ježišovi, že nič nie je poškvrnené samo osebe; len keď niekto považuje niečo za poškvrnené, je to preňho poškvrnené...19 Preto sa usilujme o to, čo slúži pokoju, a o to, čo je na vzájomné budovanie." (Rimanom 14 kap. Preklad NS)

Dobrou pomockou pre trochu znalych anglictiny su aj tieto nastroje.
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm
http://biblehub.com/

Navrhujem.

Na prvom mieste skusme riesit pozitiva, ale aj nedostatky a nech kazdy napise svoj nazor, kde pozitivum, alebo nedostatok vidi a preco. Nech k tomu nezabudne napisat aj to, ako by dana vec, ktoru chvali alebo kritizuje ako nedostatok mala zniet spravne. Nebude na skodu podlozit taketo tvrdenia aj odkazom na najpouzivanejsie povodne grecke, alebo hebrejske slova v tom, ktorom preklade a aky je ich vyznam a akymi roznymi sposobmi je ich mozne prelozit.

"Ak je to možné, pokiaľ to záleží na vás, zachovávajte pokoj so všetkými ľuďmi." (Preklad NS Rimanom 12:18)

"Usilujte sa o pokoj so všetkými ľuďmi a o posvätenie, bez ktorého nikto neuvidí Pána." (Preklad NS Hebrejom 12:14)

"13 Kto je múdry a [má] porozumenie medzi vami? Nech dokáže svojím znamenitým správaním svoje skutky s miernosťou, ktorá patrí k múdrosti. 14 Ale ak máte v svojom srdci trpkú žiarlivosť a svárlivosť, nepýšte sa a neluhajte proti pravde. 15 To nie je múdrosť prichádzajúca zhora, ale zemská, živočíšna, démonská. 16 Veď kde je žiarlivosť a svárlivosť, tam je neporiadok a každá hanebnosť.
17 Ale múdrosť zhora je predovšetkým cudná, potom pokojná, rozumná, pripravená poslúchať, plná milosrdenstva a dobrého ovocia, nerobí stranícke rozdiely, nie je pokrytecká. 18 A semeno ovocia spravodlivosti sa rozsieva v pokojných podmienkach pre tých, ktorí pôsobia pokoj." (Preklad NS Jakub 3 kap.)

[Karol Schneider]

Verše 1. Jan 5/7,8 - vsuvka do Písma nebo původní text?
https://www.facebook.com/notes/preco-ve ... 4495463050

Odkaz na porovnavac prekladov Biblie - pozrite si 7 vers
https://goo.gl/IWb5mm

Ide tu o jasny umysel podporit v 4 storoci prvykrat definovane nove ucenie o trojjedinom bohu vytvorene ucencom Atanasom podporovaneho v tejto dobe este pohanskym mocichtivym rimskym cisarom Konstantinom I. Velkym uz na Nicejskom koncile v roku 325 n.l. kde obhajoval rovnost OTCA a SYNA. V jeho spise vytvoreneho okolo roku 360 n.l. uz do tohto noveho ucenia prvykrat prenasa aj ducha svateho. "Atanáš se také jako první věnoval postavení Ducha svatého, které se objevuje v jeho Listech Seraphinových Zde poprvé formuluje úplnou trinitární teologii a podrobně se zabývá Duchem Svatým stejně jako Synem."

Snahy stotoznit Syna s OTCOM a dat mu rovnocenne postavenie vznikali uz v predchadzajucich storociach aj zo strany inych ucencov, ale nikdy to nebolo ucenim povodnych krestanov vyucovanych priamo Kristom. Bol tu viditelny silny vplyv roznych inych uceni a hlavne aktualnej svetskej filozofie uznavanej aj tymi najvyssimi kruhmi v Rimskej risi a snaha prisposobit sa aktualnym trendom a urobit tak krestanske ucenie pritazlivejsie aj pre vyssie mocenske skupiny v Rimskej risi, ktora neustale vytvarala silny tlak na krestanske ucenie, kde veriaci krestania boli najviac prenasledovany prave koncom 3 a este zaciatkom 4 storocia. Hladanie prijatelnych kompromisov bola pre niektorych aj cestou ako sa vyhnut dalsiemu prenasledovaniu, kde po vydani 4 Dioklecianovych ediktov bolo trestne uz samotne vlastnictvo krestanskych spisov (ktore boli hromadne likvidovane) a ten kdo odmietol spalit krestanske spisy a verejne sa zriect tohto ucenia a nasledne obetovat rimskym falosnym bohom bol povazovany za nelojalneho cloveka a stihany ako nebezpecny zlocinec. Urcita ulava prisla az vydanim Milanskeho ediktu v roku 313 n.l rimskym cisarom Konstantinom I. Velkym, ale za cenu dalsich ustupkov a kompromisov voci svetskej rimskej moci, ktore odmietli urobit viaceri krestania.

Stalo se to pred cim inak varoval sam Bozi Syn Jezis Kristus (podobenstvo o psenici a burine) aj apostoli (prichod antikrista a odpadnutia), lebo prave v takomto uceni je viditelne ucenie ANTIKRISTA popierajuceho Jezisa Krista prichadzajuceho ako dokonaleho cloveka v tele v nizsom postaveni od anjelov (Heb 2:9) poslaneho z Neba Otcom Najvyssim Bohom JHVH.

Ide to o jednoznacny podvod a hruby zasad do textu Bozieho slova, kde bola pridana cela veta, ktora mala byt povodne len okrajova poznamka v texte zapisovana niekym, kdo chcel toto nove ucenie Atanasa preniest aj do textu Biblie, kde inak takato nim vytvorena definicia boha neexistuje a priamo odporuje viacerym textom a jasnemu uceniu Biblie ako celku.

„Mohlo by sa zdať, že trojičná dogma v podstate vznikla koncom 4. storočia. V istom zmysle je to pravda... Formulácia ‚jeden Boh v troch Osobách‘ sa nepresadila a určite nebola úplne pojatá do kresťanského života a do kresťanského vyznania viery skôr ako koncom 4. storočia.“ (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, 14. zväzok, strana 299)

„Nicejský koncil zasadol 20. mája 325 [n. l.]. Konštantín mu sám predsedal, aktívne riadil rokovania a osobne navrhol... rozhodujúcu formuláciu vyjadrujúcu vzťah Krista k Bohu vo vyznaní, ktoré vyšlo z koncilu, že je ‚jednej podstaty s Otcom‘... Biskupi, zastrašení cisárom, s výnimkou dvoch vyznanie viery podpísali, mnohí z nich do značnej miery proti vlastnému presvedčeniu.“ (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1970, 6. zväzok, strana 386)

Ariansky veriaci krestania (znamy podla ucitela Areia) boli rimsky cisarom Konstantinom I. Velkym po Nicejskom koncile (v roku 325 n.l) poslany do vyhnanstva, lebo toto nove ucenie odmietli prijat. Arianci sa dostali sa aj na uzemie dnesneho Slovenska, kde mali Rimania svoje obchodne stanice. Boli vsak neskor tymto rimskym cisarom Konstantinom I. Velkym rehabilitovany a do vyhnanstva poslal katolikov vratane Atanasa a nakoniec prijal aj krst od Arianskeho ucitela a starsieho Eusebia z Nikomedie. Eusebius vyucoval aj dalsieho znameho krestanskeho ucitela a starsieho znameho ako Wulfilu (je znamy jeho preklad Biblie do Gotskeho jazyka) rovnako sa hlasil k Arianskemu krestanskemu uceniu odmietajuceho Atanasom a dalsimi vytvarane nove definicie Boha, ktore sa vsak nakoniec mocou rimskych cisarov podarilo presadit. Prispel k tomu aj Theodesius I. (381 n.l.) diktujuci svoje predstavy o Bohu na kontantinopolskom koncile odvolavajuc sa na Nicejsky koncil z roku (325 n.l.). Z tohto smilstva a prepojenia svetskem moci s ucenim prisposobivych krestanov potom vznikla aj RKC, ktora sa stala v Rime hlavnym statnym nabozentvom a z moci rimskych cisarov potom vzosla aj moc rimskych papezov pouzivajucich rovnaky titul PONTIFEX MAXIMUS, aky predtym v minulosti pouzival aj pohansky rimsky knaz a neskor rimsky cisar, ktory si takto narokoval nielen svetku moc, ale aj duchovnu moc a pravo urcit vsetkym v Rime ake bozstva maju uctievat.

Podrobnejsie informacie o vzniku ako aj postupnych reformacnych snahach odstranit toto nekrestanske ucenie o trojjedinom bohu si kazdy moze pozriet tu. Uvedene zdroje nie su zo stranok Svedkov Jehovovych.
Je učenie o trojici pravdou o Bohu? http://referaty.atlas.sk/vseobecne-huma ... 7/?print=1
Odporuje učenie o trojici Biblii? http://jedinyboh.webnode.sk/news/odporu ... i-biblii-/

[log]

Verše 1. Jan 5/7,8 - vsuvka do Písma nebo původní text?

To je zaujimava informacia, ze tento text mohol byt neskor pridany. Neda sa to ani potvrdit ani vyvratit, ale indicie proti textu su silne.

Kazdopadne je to jeden z mala textov, ak nie jediny, ktory by nejako smeroval k uceniu v trojicu. Osobne si tiez myslim, ze "trojica" je ucenie az po-biblicke.

Existuje este jeden zvlastny text, ktory mi tiez vobec nezapada medzi ostatne - krstite ich v meno Otca, Syna I Ducha Svateho. Co vieme o tomto texte ? Dokazat nejaku nepovodnost sa neda, vsetky najdene rukopisy ho obsahuju (no vsetky su "nove"). Aj tak mam za to, ze takyto krst sa nikde inde v Biblii nevyskytuje a ani nedava zmysel. Vzdy sa krstilo pre pokanie alebo v meno Jezisa a po krste bol krstencovi dany dar Ducha. Krstit v meno Ducha je teda nanajvys zvlastne, zvlast preto, ze ziadne meno ani nema. Ani o krste v meno Otca sme nikdy nepoculi.

Myslim, ze koncept trojice sa v Biblii tak uplne naozaj vystopovat neda. Hlavne si myslim, ze je aj zbytocne, aby sme taky koncept potrebovali. Celkovy pribeh to nijako zasadne neovplyvnuje.

[log]

Musim sa priznat, ze som si velmi oblubil Botekov preklad. Ako kniha bol vydany len pred niekolkymi rokmi, takze mi nebol, asi ani inym, znamy. Bol postupne pisany katolickym ucencom Botekom, z povodnych jszykov, ale s prihliadnutim k cenenemu prekladu katolickych frsncuzskych ucencov (Jeruzalemska Biblia). Osobne mi jazyk Botekovho prekladu pripada byt velmi zrozumitelny s moderny a ide na koren myslienok. Zachovava vernost povodnemu textu na slovach "sobota" ci "Jahve", neprepisuje ich za ine.

[Slavo]

Verše 1. Jan 5/7,8 - vsuvka do Písma nebo původní text?

To je zaujimava informacia, ze tento text mohol byt neskor pridany. Neda sa to ani potvrdit ani vyvratit, ale indicie proti textu su silne.

Kazdopadne je to jeden z mala textov, ak nie jediny, ktory by nejako smeroval k uceniu v trojicu. Osobne si tiez myslim, ze "trojica" je ucenie az po-biblicke.

Existuje este jeden zvlastny text, ktory mi tiez vobec nezapada medzi ostatne - krstite ich v meno Otca, Syna I Ducha Svateho. Co vieme o tomto texte ? Dokazat nejaku nepovodnost sa neda, vsetky najdene rukopisy ho obsahuju (no vsetky su "nove"). Aj tak mam za to, ze takyto krst sa nikde inde v Biblii nevyskytuje a ani nedava zmysel. Vzdy sa krstilo pre pokanie alebo v meno Jezisa a po krste bol krstencovi dany dar Ducha. Krstit v meno Ducha je teda nanajvys zvlastne, zvlast preto, ze ziadne meno ani nema. Ani o krste v meno Otca sme nikdy nepoculi.

Myslim, ze koncept trojice sa v Biblii tak uplne naozaj vystopovat neda. Hlavne si myslim, ze je aj zbytocne, aby sme taky koncept potrebovali. Celkovy pribeh to nijako zasadne neovplyvnuje.

Ano, Mt 28:19 je aj podla nizsie uvedenych informacii naozaj tiez pozmeneny vers:


MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 1
MATTHEW 28:19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - IT WAS ADDED
The so-called "Great Commission" to be: "baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is NOT Scripture!
UNKNOWN AUTHOR
RECEIVED: OCTOBER 21, 2005 THROUGH SCOTT PARIS
A Colossal Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were
undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual
criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious
explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME)
formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the
very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, page 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the
ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the
second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by
Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the
NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or
anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been
pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to
baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the
(ancient) text ("in my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the
Trinitarian formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the
historical teaching of Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early
(Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief
summary of the (Catholic) Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the
New Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom.
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 2
6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula
occurs only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the
distinctly liturgical character of the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas...
the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..." page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a
reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be
remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to
the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church
tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name
of the Trinity..."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian)
formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage
established later in the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in
the name of Jesus, cf. Acts 1:5 +."

Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these
facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of
Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and
we know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not
baptize people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism
was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My
Name" and then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view
put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the
accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published:
"The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they
knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.
Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we
should probably read simply-"into My Name."

Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical
fact that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. "As to the rite of baptism, it
was normally consummated as a bath in which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if
possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22, Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did.
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 3
7:1-3 specifically says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic Didache] suffices in case of the
need if water is three times poured [false Catholic sprinkling doctrine] on the head. The one baptizing names
over the one being baptized the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," later expanded [changed] to the name of the
Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G. Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical
History at King's College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that Catholic Trinitarian
Baptism was not the original form of Christian Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. "In the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," although those words were not used, as they later
are, as a formula. Not all baptisms fitted this rule." Dr Hall further, states: "More common and perhaps more
ancient was the simple, "In the name of the Lord Jesus or, Jesus Christ." This practice was known among
Marcionites and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and Africa about 254, as the
anonymous tract De rebaptismate ("On rebaptism") shows."

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version
pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century
in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is
whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history
by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how
necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the
institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the
faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as
the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third
Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world,
and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No
other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr,
though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted
with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in
another form, "Go ye into all the world and make disciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have
been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism,
so that transcriptional evidence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of
Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of
the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the
Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in
Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition,
nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the
narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized
(Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus,
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 4
but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts
of importance are all contained in Acts."
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing
discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in
it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous
passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early
Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a
historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed
to Trinity baptism.
"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for
the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in
the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the
description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used
incidentally."

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation. By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. "The
passages in Acts and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest form as baptism in
the name of the Lord." Also we find. "Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ
commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ given such a command, it is urged, the
Apostolic Church would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the New
Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-traditional
view, is this the short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and the longer trine formula was a
later development."

A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the
historical facts again declared. "With the early disciples generally baptism was "in the name of Jesus Christ."
There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command
attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles'
Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The
Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism
in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257)."
On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This
Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal Apostles'
Creed. Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics
and Gnostics that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his
doctrine still baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first nonBiblical Roman Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the
newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ."
Matthew 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient
original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old
manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis?
"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was
thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired
spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of
the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to
Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of
the so-called Apostles Creed."
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 5

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our
(Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries
in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19)
came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the
original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention
of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of
Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew
that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of
Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to
His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

OTHERS:
"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not
an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism" (The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).
"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in
Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual
grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not
appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or
'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The
Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).
Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it.
The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words
"baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my
name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit" (Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).
"On the text, see Conybeare, Zeitsch. Fur die Neutest. Wissensch. 1901, 275 ff.; Hibbert Journal, October
1902; Lake, Inaugural Lecture; Riggenbach, Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl; Chase, Journal Theo. Stud. Vi. 481
ff. The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive, in view of the fact that all Greek MSS. and all
extant VSS., contain the clause (S1 and S2 are unhappily wanting). The Eusebian quotation: "Go disciple ye
all the nations in my name," can not be taken as decisive proof that the clause "Baptizing...Spirit" was lacking
in copies known to Eusebius, because "in my name" may be Eusebius' way of abbreviating, for whatever
reason, the following clause. On the other hand, Eusebius cites in this short form so often that it is easier to
suppose that he is definitely quoting the words of the Gospel, than to invent possible reasons which may have
caused him so frequently to have paraphrased it. And if we once suppose his short form to have been current
in MSS. of the Gospel, there is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the Gospel, and
that in the later centuries the clause "baptizing...Spirit" supplanted the shorter "in my name." And insertion of
this kind derived from liturgical use would very rapidly be adopted by copyists and translators. The Didache
has ch. 7: "Baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit": but the passage need not
be dependent on our canonical Gospel, and the Didache elsewhere has a liturgical addition to the text of the
Gospels in the doxology attached to the Lord's Prayer. But Irenaeus and Tertullian already have the longer
clause" (The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; S.
Driver, A. Plummer, C. Briggs; A Critical & Exegetical Commentary of St. Matthew Third Edition, 1912, pages
307-308).
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 6
"The disciples are further told to "baptize" (the second of the participles functioning as supplementary
imperatives) new disciples. The command to baptize comes as somewhat of a surprise since baptism is
referred to earlier only in chap. 3 (and 21:25) where only John's baptism is described (among the Gospels only
in John 3:22; 4:1-2 do we read of Jesus' or his disciples' baptizing others). Matthew tells us nothing concerning
his view of Christian baptism. Only Matthew records this command of Jesus, but the practice of the early
church suggest its historicity. (cf. Acts 2;38, 41; 8:12, 38; 9:18; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; etc.). The threefold name (at
most only an incipient Trinitarianism) in which the baptism was to be performed, on the other hand, seems
clearly to be a liturgical expansion of the evangelist consonant with the practice of his day (thus Hubbard; cf.
Did. 7.1). There is a good possibility that in its original form, as witnessed by the ante-Nicene Eusebian form,
the text read "make disciples in my name" (see Conybeare). This shorter reading preserves the symmetrical
rhythm of the passage, whereas the triadic formula fits awkwardly into the structure as one might expect if it
were an interpolation (see H. B. Green; cf. Howard; Hill [IBS 8 (1986) 54-63], on the other hand, argues for a
concentric design with the triadic formula at its center). It is Kosmala, however, who has argued most
effectively for the shorter reading, pointing to the central importance of "name of Jesus" in early Christian
preaching, the practice of baptism in the name of Jesus, and the singular "in his name" with reference to the
hope of the Gentiles in Isa. 42:4b, quoted by Matthew in 12:18-21. As Carson rightly notes of our passage:
"There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the
name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) or simply "the
Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16; 19:5)" (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 33B, Matthew 14-28; Donald A. Hagner, 1975,
page887-888).
"It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The
reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as
delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign
to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended
from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian
communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also
baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus'
recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John
4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of
tradition to trace back to Jesus a "Sacrament of Baptism," or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it
is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.
1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit emerged" (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79).
"The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and
baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century,
and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No
historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3
The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the
middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use
of it instead of the older phrase baptized "into Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27;
Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the
apostles, was baptized, ere he was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into
Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by
almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical
authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor
Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by
an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ
Jesus," (Acts 2:38) and not "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And doubtless
the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period
whereof he treats" (The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568).
"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea
in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 7
of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean
of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text,
could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the
discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading." "It is satisfactory to notice that Dr.
Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading
in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance" (History of New Testament
Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112).
It is doubted whether the explicit injunction of Matt. 28:19 can be accepted as uttered by Jesus. ...But the
Trinitarian formula in the mouth of Jesus is certainly unexpected" (A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, J.
Hastings, 1906, page 170).
"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew
28:19 is spurious. No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the epistles
of the apostles" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398).
Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is
a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the
Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the
underlying reality remains the same" (The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64).
Matthew 28:19 "... has been disputed on textual grounds, but in the opinion of many scholars the words may
still be regarded as part of the true text of Matthew. There is, however, grave doubt whether thy may be the
ipsissima verba of Jesus. The evidence of Acts 2:38; 10:48 (cf. 8:16; 19:5), supported by Gal. 3:27; Rom 6:3,
suggest that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the threefold name, but "in the name of
Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus." This is difficult to reconcile with the specific instructions of the
verse at the end of Matthew" (The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, page 351).
Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus
and regards it as of later origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it
gradually developed into its tripartite form (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn
Wolfson, 1964, pg 143).
G.R. Beasley-Murray in his book, "Baptism in the New Testament" and a believer of the trinity doctrine, gives
us some new insight on how the original text of Matthew 28:19 was structured:
"A whole group of exegetes and critics have recognized that the opening declaration of Matt. 28:18 demands a
Christological statement to follow it: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" leads us to
expect as a consequence, "Go and make disciples unto Me among all the nations, baptising them in My name,
teaching them to observe all things I commanded you." In fact, the first and third clauses have that
significance: it looks as thought the second clause has been modified from a Christological to a Trinitarian
formula in the interests of the liturgical tradition" (G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962, pg. 83).
"We now have absolute proof the Catholic Church fathers perverted the text in Matthew 28:19. We now have
the Hebrew Matthew Gospel, a manuscript that was preserved by the Jews from the first century [Shem Tov's
Hebrew Matthew Gospel]. In this Shem Tov MSS, the text at Matthew 28:19 does not contain the trinitarian
statement."

Eusebius As A Witness
There were several men of this name. The one with whom we are concerned is known as Eusebius Pamphili,
or Eusebius of Caesarea. He was born about 270 A.D. and died about 340 A.D. He lived in times of gross
spiritual darkness, he was a Trinitarian, and later in life he assisted in the preparation of the Nicene Creed.
Here follows the opinion of historians and others concerning him.
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 8
"Eusebius of Caesarea, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many contemporary works of
antiquity, many of which must have perished had he not collected and edited them" (Robert Roberts, Good
Company, vol. III, page 10).
"Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time... worked
untiringly for the acceptance of the pure word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles.
Eusebius...relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he
cannot find sufficient testimony" (E. K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug 1923; Fraternal Visitor, June
1924).
"Eusebius Pamphilius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has
acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning."
Ch. ii, 9... till about 40 years of age he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilius, a learned and devout
man of Caesarea, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of
learning. Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history
which his age afforded" (J. L. Mosheim, editorial footnote).
"Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament" (Dr. Westcott,
General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, page 108).
"The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius was a
man of little originality or independent judgement. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of
the second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a
deep debt to his honest, if somewhat confused, and at time not a little prejudice, erudition" (Peake's Bible
Commentary, 1929,page 596).
"Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as read (by
Eusebius). In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and
must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose... Under the second head the
most vital question if the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with his material or not? The sarcasm of
GIBBON (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known... the passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his
imputation...Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins... in general terms, without entering into
details...but it leaves no imputation on his honesty" (Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature).
"Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which
his age afforded." (J. L. Mosheim: an editorial note).
"Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood in the Greek MSS, from about 300-340,
none is so important as Eusebius of Caesarea, for he lived in the greatest Christian library of that age, that
namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say that from this single collection
of manuscripts at Caesarea derives the larger part of the surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his library,
Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of
the great uncials that we have now in our libraries" (The Hibbert Journal, October., 1902).
So much for the honesty, ability, and opportunity of Eusebius as a witness to the text of the New Testament.
Now we are ready to consider his evidence on the text of Matthew 28:19.

The Evidence Of Eusebius
Having introduced the first witness, it is time to ascertain what he wrote concerning the text of Matthew 28:19.
According to the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius among his many other writings compiled
a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and "the most serious of all the falsifications
denounce by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19."
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 9
Persistent inquiry has failed to trace the compilation referred to, and Knupfer, the Editor, has left his last
Canadian address without a trace. But various authorities mention "a work entitled DISCREPANCIES IN THE
GOSPELS or QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS ON SOME POINTS IN THE GOSPEL HISTORY" and another
work on THE CONCLUDING SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS.
According to F.C. Conybeare, "Eusebius cites this text again and again in his works written between 300 and
336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany
...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a
moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the
following form:"
"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I
commanded you."
I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine,
the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. And
Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a
way as to show how much he set store by the words "in my name." Thus in his Demonstratio Evangelica he
writes thus (col. 240, p. 136):
"For he did not enjoin them 'to make disciples of all nations' simply and without qualification, but with the
essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to his appellation that the Apostle says,
God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things
in heaven and on earth and under the earth. It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the
power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, Go ye and make
disciples of all nations in my name."
"Conybeare proceeds: (in Hibbert Journal, 1902, p 105): "It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius
in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great
predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard, and knew nothing until he had visited
Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old
age, and entitled, the one, "Against Marcellus of Ancyra," the other "About the Theology of the Church," he
used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the council of
Nicea was over to his see of Caesarea."
In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare writes: "It is clear, therefore, that the MSS which
Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the
original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had
been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to
mention but a few names out of many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus
this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form
of reading."
An objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, "who argues that Eusebius found the Textus Receptus
(traditional text) in his manuscripts, but substituted the shorter formula in his works for fear of vulgarising and
divulging the sacred Trinitarian formula." It is interesting to find a modern Bishop reviving the very argument
used 150 years before, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7--
"Bengel ...allowed that the words (the Three Witnesses) were in no genuine MSS... surely, then, the verse is
spurious! No: this learned man finds a way of escape. The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature
that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost. Under what a
want of evidence must a critic labor who resorts to such an argument" --Porson (Preface to his letters)!
Conybeare continues, refuting the arguments of the Bishop of Ely. "It is sufficient answer to point out that
Eusebius's argument, when he cites the text, involves the text 'in my name.' For, he ask, 'in whose name?' and
answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians 2:10."
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 10

The Ency. Rel. and Ethics states:
"The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19, 21 times, either omitting everything between
'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name,' the latter form being the more
frequent."
Now let us look at the other early writers who quote Matthew 28:19.

EVIDENCE OF OTHER WRITERS

AUTHOR OF DE REBAPTISMATE
"The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood them, and dwells at length on
'the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism" (De Rebaptismate 6.7 Smith's Dictionary of
the Bible, Vol. i, p. 352).

ORIGEN
"In Origin's works as preserved in Greek, the first part of the verse is thrice adduced, but his citation always
stops short at the words 'the nations;' and that in itself suggests that his text has been censured, and words
which followed, 'in my name,' struck out" (Conybeare)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
"In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew xxviii. 19 is once cited; but from a
gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, as follows: 'And to the apostles he gives
the command. Going around preaching ye and baptize those who believe in the name of father and son and
holy spirit" (Excerpta, cap. 76, ed. Sylb. p. 987; --Conybeare).

JUSTIN MARTYR
"Justin Martyr quotes a saying of Christ as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use
of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This
certainly suggest that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19" (Ency. Rel. and Ethics, p 380)
"In Justin Martyr, who wrote between A.D. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a
citation or echo of Matthew xxviii. 19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen,
who sees in it an abridgment of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin's dialogue with Trypho 39, p. 258:
'God hath not yet inflicted no inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even to-day are being made
disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as
they be worthy, being illumined by the name of this Christ.' The objection hitherto to these words being
recognized as a citation of our text was that they ignored the formula 'baptising them in the name of the Father
and Son and holy Spirit.' But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes this difficulty; and Justin is
seen to have had the same text as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts
from 300-340" (--Conybeare (Hibbert Journal p 106).

MACEDONIUS
"We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was writing early in the third century. In the
middle of that century Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of
the orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the baptisms even of heretics were valid, if the name of
Jesus alone was invoked" (However, this decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from
excommunicating the entire Celtic Church for its adhesion to the old use of invoking the one name). In the last
half of the fourth century the text "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost" was used as
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 11
a battle-cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called pneumao-machi or fighters
against the Holy Spirit, because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal,
consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and Son. They also stoutly denied that any text of the N.T.
authorized such a co-ordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed
with that of Eusebius" --F.C. Conybeare (Hibbert Journal, page 107).

EUNOMIUS
"Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out. CYPRIAN (Ep.73) and the
APOSTOLIC CANONS (no. 50) combat the shorter formula, thereby attesting its use in certain quarters. The
ordinance of Canon Apostolic 50 runs:
'If any Bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms 'of one initiation, but one baptism which is given (as) into
the death of the Lord, let him be deposed.'
"This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5.24) 'for they baptized not into the Trinity, but into
the death of Christ.' They accordingly used single immersion only" Ency. Biblica (Art. Baptism).

APHRAATES
"There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates the Syriac father who wrote
between 337 and 345. He cites our text in a formal manner as follows:
'Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me.'
"The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebius reading 'in my name.' But in any case they preclude the
textus receptus with its injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the reading of Aphraates an isolated fact,
we might regard it as a loose citation, but in presence of the Eusebian and Justinian text this is impossible." --
Conybeare (THJ) page 107

How Biblical MSS Were Altered
The following quotations will show the ease with which scribes freely altered the MSS of the New Testament,
so unlike the scribes and custodians of the Old Testament Scriptures who copied the holy Writings with
reverence and strict accuracy.
These quotations will also show the early start of the practice of triune immersion at the time when the doctrine
of the Trinity was being formulated.
They will also show how the New Testament writings were made to conform to traditional practice.

CONYBEARE
"In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version
has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising for as Dr. C. R. Gregory, one of the greatest of
our textual critics, reminds us, 'the Greek MSS of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes,
who put into them the readings which were familiar to them,' and which they held to be the right readings.
Canon and Text of the N T, 1907, page 424."
"These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have
been revised and interpolate by orthodox copyist. We can trace their perversions of the text in a few cases,
with the aid of patristic citations and ancient versions. But there must remain many passages which have not
been so corrected, but where we cannot today expose the fraud. It was necessary to emphasis this point,
because Drs. Westcott and Hort used to say that there is no evidence of merely doctrinal changes having been
made in the text of the New Testament. This is just the opposite of the truth, and such distinguished scholars
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 12
as Alfred Loisy, J. Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolph Harnack, to mention only four names, do not scruple
to recognize the fact"
[While this is perfectly true, nevertheless "There are a number of reasons why we can feel confident about the
general reliability of our translations." Peter Watkins, 'Bridging the Gap' in The Christadelphian, January 1962,
pp. 4-8.]

FRATERNAL VISITOR (1924, p. 148)
"Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing MSS if it were completely preserved, less damaged,
(less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places.
Eusebius, therefore, is not without grounds for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly-arisen
doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once." Fraternal Visitor, in The Christadelphian
Monatshefte, 1924, page 148.

WHISTON
"We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruption's brought into the Scriptures... by
Athanasius, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not,
that I know of, any such interpolations and corruption, made in any one of them by either the Eusebians or
Arians" Second letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, page 15.

SMITH'S DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES [Art. Baptism Sec. 50]
"While trine immersion was thus an all but universal practice, Eunomius (circ. 360) appears to have been the
first to introduce simple immersion 'unto the death of Christ' ...This practice was condemned on pain of
degradation, by the Canon Apost. 46 (al 50). But it comes before us again about a century later in Spain; but
then, curiously enough, we find it regarded as a badge of orthodoxy in opposition to the practice of the Arians.
These last kept to the use of the Trine immersion, but in such a way as to set forth their own doctrine of a
gradation in the three Persons."

OXFORD DICTIONARY OF THE CHRISTAIN CHURCH
"In the 'Two Ways' of the Didache, the principal duties of the candidates for Baptism and the method of
administering it by triple immersion of infusion on the head are outlined. This triple immersion is also attested
by Tertullian (Adversus Prax 26). ...The most elaborate form of the rite in modern Western usage is in the
Roman Catholic Church" [pp. 125-126].

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
"In the Eastern Churches, triune immersion is regarded as the only valid form of baptism" [Vol. 1. p. 243 fn].

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
"The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church. ...Its object is, of course, to honor the
Three Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred" [p. 262].

ENCY. RELIGION AND ETHICS
"If it be thought as many critics think, that no MS represents more than comparatively late recessions of the
text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice. It
seems easier to believe that the traditional text was brought about by this influence working on the 'Eusebian'
text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it" [Art. Baptism].

CONYBEARE
MATT. 28-19 - NOT SCRIPTURAL - WAS ADDED [Unknown Author] 13
"The exclusive survival of (3) in all MSS., both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. In the only codices
which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin MS.,
the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew. But in any case the conversion of Eusebius to the
longer text after the council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a Shibboleth of
orthodoxy into all codices. We have no codex older than the year 400, if so old; and long before that time the
question of the inclusion of the holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out, and a text so
invaluable to the dominate party could not but make its way into every codex, irrespectively of its textual
affinities" [Hibbert Journal].

ROBERT ROBERTS
"Athanasius... met Flavian, the author of the Doxology, which has since been universal in Christendom: 'Glory
be to the Father, and to the Son, etc.' This was composed in opposition to the Arian Doxology: 'Glory to the
Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit" [Robert Roberts, Good Company, Vol. iii, p. 49].

WHISTON
"The Eusebians... sometimes named the very time when, the place where, and the person whom they (i.e.
forms of doxology) were first introduced... thus Philoflorgius, a writer of that very age, assures us in
PHOTIUS'S EXTRACTS that A.D. 348 or thereabouts, Flavianus, Patriarche of Antioch, got a multitude of
monks together, and did there first use this public doxology, 'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the
Holy Spirit." [Second Letter concerning the Primitive Doxologies, 1719, p.17].

HAMMOND
"There are two or three insertions in the NT which have been supposed to have their origin in the ecclesiastical
usage. The words in question, being familiarly known in a particular connection, were perhaps noted in the
margin of some copy, and thence became incorporated by the next transcriber; or a transcriber's own
familiarity with the words might have led to his inserting them. This is the source to which Dr. Tregelles assigns
the Doxology at the close of the Lord's Prayer in Matt. 6, which is wanting most of the best authorities. Perhaps
also Acts 8:37, containing the baptismal profession of faith, which is entirely wanting in the best authorities,
found its way into the Latin text in this manner" [Hammond, Textual Criticism Applied to the NT, (1890) p 23.]

A GIFT FROM: LIGHTHOUSE LIBRARY, INTERNATIONAL; P. O. BOX 571225,
DALLAS, TX 75357-1225; ROGER and SUNNY COFFMAN; [972] 270-4232;
E-MAIL: inquiries@lighthouselibrary.com; WEB PAGE: www.LighthouseLibrary.com
NEWEST WEB PAGE: www.LighthouseLibrary.org

[Laco.]

Neviem po Anglicky. Ak môžeš prosím sprav stručný sumár.

[Neregistrovaný]

Neviem po Anglicky. Ak môžeš prosím sprav stručný sumár.

https://www.bing.com/translator/

[mikim]

Neviem po Anglicky. Ak môžeš prosím sprav stručný sumár.

https://www.bing.com/translator/

Tady to je také pěkně vysvětleno:

Matouš 28: 19

Můžeme nalézt od teologů a ostatních spisovatelů množství historických citátů, které intenzivně naznačují, že verš Matouš 28: 19 je modifikován. Je třeba mít na paměti, že nemáme žádné známé rukopisy, které byly napsány v prvním, druhém nebo třetím století. Mezi dobou, kdy Matouš sepsal své epištoly a naší nejstarší kopií rukopisu, je mezera více než tři sta let. ( Také katolické církvi to trvalo více než tři sta let vývoje, než se stala tím, co z ní chtěli "první církevní otcové" mít. ) Tohle odhalil můj výzkum. Eusebios byl biskupem v Kaisareii a je považován za "otce církevních dějin". Byl plodným spisovatelem a jeho nejslavnější dílo nese název Církevní dějiny, dějiny církve od apoštolského období až do doby, kdy on žil. Eusebios ve svých spisech cituje mnoho veršů, Matouše 28: 19 dokonce několikrát. Tento verš ale nikdy necituje tak, jak se objevuje v moderních Biblích. Pokaždé dokončí verš slovy "v mém jménu." Obsahuje Matouš 28: 19 přidaný text? Následující výňatky pocházejí z nepozměněné Matoušovy knihy, která by mohla být původní nebo i první kopií Matoušova originálu. Takto nás Eusebius informuje o skutečných slovech, která Ježíš mluvil ke svým učedníkům v Matouši 28: 19: “Jednou větou a jedním hlasem řekl svým učedníkům:" Jděte a získávejte učedníky ze všech národů v Mém Jménu , učte je, aby zachovávali všechny věci, kteréž jsem vám přikázal,” — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, kap. 6, 132 (a), str. 152) " Ale zatímco to Ježíšovi učedníci s největší pravděpodobností takto říkali, nebo tak přemýšleli, jejich Mistr vyřešil učedníkům problém tím, že přidal jednu frázi , a to tu, kterou to měli vítězoslavně zakončit" v mé jméno . " A moc jeho jména je tak obrovská , že apoštol říká: "Protož i Bůh povýšil ho nade vše, a dal jemu jméno nad každé jméno, aby ve jménu Ježíše každé koleno klekalo, těch, kteříž jsou na nebesích, a těch, kteříž jsou na zemi, i těch, kteříž jsou pod zemí," On ukázal působivost moci ukryté v Jeho jménu skryté davu, když řekl svým učedníkům : " Protož jdouce, učte všecky národy křtíce je ve jméno mé ." Také velmi přesně předpovídá budoucnost když říká: "protož musí nejprv býti kázáno toto evangelium po všem světě, na svědectví všechněm národům." — (Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius, Book III, ch 7, 136 (a-d), p. “Který jim řekl; “Všechny národy získávejte za učedníky v Mé jméno.” — (Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. v Knize III jeho díla Historie, v kapitole č. 5, část 2, což se týká pronásledování prvních křesťanů Židy, čteme, " spoléhajíce se na moc Krista, který jim řekl," Odeberte se [tedy] a všechny národy získávejte za učedníky v Mé jméno " A v jeho Proslovu na chválu císaře Konstantina, kapitola 16, bod 8 čteme, "Beze vší pochyby nikdo kromě našeho jediného Spasitele tak neučinil, když po vítězství nad smrtí promluvil slovem ke svým následovníkům a touto událostí naplnil, řekl jim,"Odeberte se [tedy] a všechny národy získávejte za učedníky v Mé jméno.” Eusebius byl přítomen na koncilu v Nice a zapojil se do debaty mezi Areem a Atanášem, jehož pohanský názor se stal učením Trojice. Když v rukopisech, které měl před sebou, stálo"ve jménu Otce a Syna a Ducha svatého," nikdy takovéto znění necitoval a namísto toho uvádí "v Mé jméno."Takže se zdá, že v nejstarších rukopisech stálo"v Mé jméno,"a slovní obrat byl rozšířen tak, aby odrážel ortodoxní pozici, jak se trojiční vliv šířil. Níže je Matouš 28:19 podle King James Bible (pozn. překl., zde Kraličtí). Matouš 28:19 “Protož jdouce, učte všecky národy, křtíce je ve jméno Otce i Syna i Ducha svatého:” Zastánci Trojice často tvrdí, že tento verš podporuje vyznání jejich víry. Nicméně, tento verš v žádném případě nepotvrzuje trojiční učení, které ustanovuje, že Otec, Syn a Duch svatý jsou tři rovnocenné, spoluvěčné bytosti, a které tvoří jednoho Boha . Nikdo nepopírá, že Otec, Syn i Duch svatý existují. Tento verš odkazuje na tři entity (subjekty), ale nikdy neříká, že jsou jedno a neříká nic o jejich osobnosti. Verš také neříká, že jsou to tři bytosti, ani že jsou tři v jedné nebo jedna ve třech. Neříká, že ti tři tvoří Božstvo (Godhead), neříká, že ti tři jsou trojice. Neříká, že ti tři jsou spolurovné nebo spoluvěčné bytosti. Dále neříká, že ti tři jsou všichni Bůh, a přesto někteří vyvozují závěr, že tohle podporuje jejich víru v trojici, což zjevně tak není. Oni prostě z tohoto verše vyvozují něco, co samotný verš neříká. Je-li tento verš nefalšovaný, člověk by se také mohl ptát, proč tedy ta zdánlivá neposlušnost apoštolů, protože není nikoho, kdo by uposlechl těmto údajným slovům Ježíše Krista z Matouše 28:19. Zde jsou všechny biblické verše Nového Zákona ohledně křtu. Nově obrácení byli křtěni pouze ve jméno Ježíše Krista. Skutky 2:38 "Tedy Petr řekl jim: Pokání čiňte a pokřti se jeden každý z vás ve jméno Ježíše Krista na odpuštění hříchů a přijmete dar Ducha svatého. " Skutky 8:12 A když uvěřivše Filipovi zvěstujícímu o království Božím a o jménu Ježíše Krista, křtili se muži i ženy.” Skutky 8:16 " (Nebo ještě byl na žádného z nich nesstoupil, ale pokřtěni toliko byli ve jménu Pána Ježíše.) . " Skutky 10:48 " A rozkázal je pokřtiti ve jménu Páně. . I prosili ho, aby u nich pobyl za některý den.” Skutky 19:5 “A když to uslyšeli, byli pokřtěni ve jméno Pána Ježíše..” Skutky 22:16 “ A protož nyní co prodléváš? Vstana, pokřti se, a obmej hříchy své, vzývaje jméno Páně..” Romans 6:3 “ Zdali je vám neznámo, že kolik nás bylo pokřtěno v Krista Ježíše,byli jsme pokřtěni v jeho smrt?” 1 Korintským 1:13 " je Kristus rozdělen? Což za vás byl ukřižován Pavel? Anebo jste byli pokřtěni ve jméno Pavlovo?” [Implikuje] Galatským 3:27 " Nebo kteřížkoli v Krista pokřtěni jste, Krista jste oblékli. " Takže, měl by Matouš 28:19 znít “ křtíce je ve jméno Otce i Syna i Ducha svatého, .” nebo “křtíce je v Mé jméno.” A na podkladu našeho závěru, měl by verš v Koloským 2:12 proto znít“Pohřbeni jsouce s Otcem, Synem a Duchem Svatým skrze křest,, skrze ně i spolu s nimiz mrtvých vstali jste.” nebo “Pohřbeni jsouce s ním skrze křest , v němž jste sním byli i vzkříšeni, skrze víru v působení Boha, jenž zprostřed mrtvých vzkřísil jeho.” Koloským 2:12 Závěrem, Matouš 28: 19 nedokazuje ani nevyvrací učení o trojici a sami se budete muset rozhodnout, zda-li k tomu tento text patří. Protože to nelze přesvědčivě prokázat na jednu stranu ani na druhou. Písmo ale rozhodně silně naznačuje, že křest by měl být ve jméno Krista, jak to prozrazují všechny příklady. Důvod, proč jsme křtěni ve jméno Krista je ten, že jsme křtěni "do (stavu)" Ježíše Krista. Křest je symbolem jeho smrti, uložení a vzkříšení. I kdyby bylo učení o trojici pravda, pouze Ježíš Kristus zemřel, byl uložen a zase povstal. Když jsme křtěni ve jméno Krista, stáváme se křesťany. Pavel tento bod v 1 Korintským 1:13 obhajoval, když řekl, "je Kristus rozdělen? Zdali Pavel ukřižován jest za vás? Anebo jste byli pokřtěni ve jméno Pavlovo?” Zřejmá odpověď na tuto řečnickou otázku je, “Ne. Byli jste pokřtěni ve jménu Krista, protože za vás byl ukřižován On. " Zvažte také " Kdož uvěří a pokřtí se, spasen bude. ; " Marek 16:16 . Takže jsme li právě křtěni, čí jméno použijeme, abychom byli spaseni? “Vstaň a dej se pokřtít, a obmýt si své hříchy, vzývaje jméno Páně.” Skutky 22:16. A jaké je JEDINÉ jméno pod nebem, v němž můžeme být spaseni? “A neníť v žádném jiném spasení: neboť není jiného jména pod nebem daného lidem, skrze kteréž bychom mohli spaseni býti..” Skutky 4:12 Myslím, že většina bude souhlasit, že váha důkazů je ohromující, protože v Matoušovi 28: 19 by mělo stát: " v Mé jméno. " Pro Adventisty: "Viděla jsem, že Bůh obzvláště střežil Bibli. A přece v době, když existovalo jen několik jejích opisů, našli se vzdělaní mužové, kteří změnili některá její slova v domnění, že ji tím udělají srozumitelnější. Ve skutečnosti to co bylo srozumitelné , udělali nesrozumitelné, protože to přizpůsobili svým zakořeněným názorům, které byly ovlivněny tradicemi . " (E. G. Whiteová EW (Rané spisy) , 220.2, 1882)