Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: Jan. 1, 2009
Update	: Jun. 9, 2025
Parts	: 08

Synopsis:



Continuing our discussion from part six, it is quite evident that 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. If you doubt that this is so, please consider the following rather clear, indisputable example verses:

"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."


"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."


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


"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."


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


"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."


"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."


"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."


"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."


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


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 which date back to that time period include the writings of the Jewish historian and general, Flavius Josephus -- including "The Wars of the Jews" and "Antiquities of the Jews" -- the writings of the Jewish philosopher Philo, as well as the writings of Roman knight -- or Equestrian -- military man, geographer and explorer, Pliny the Elder, who was a friend of Emperor Vespasian at the time that Jerusalem was destroyed by Vespasian's son, Titus, in 70 AD. Again, I discuss this event in great detail in the series entitled "Vespasian, Titus and the Fall of Jerusalem".

Pliny the Elder also witnessed the violent eruption of Mount Vesuvius, which resulted in the utter destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Certain 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".

Do 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 today have been able to use different scientific methods to carefully extract their historic contents. Of course, it's taken them years to do so.

So the big question in my mind is the following: How exactly is it that the Dead Sea Scrolls managed to survive until our current time two thousand years later, yet all the original manuscripts, as written by the First Century Apostles, were destroyed within two or three hundred years, so that none of them existed by the time of the Fourth Century? Should we simply rely on 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 thorough, that all of the autographs -- the original manuscripts -- were totally destroyed, leaving us with only 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've 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 our modern Bible.

In one of the oldest extant -- or existing -- Bible texts of the New Testament which is referred to as the Codex Sinaitic Syriac -- a.k.a. the Sinaitic Palimpsest -- which contains a Syriac translation of the four Gospels that even predates the Peshitta -- the standard Syriac translation of the Bible -- the very last page of the Gospel of Matthew is missing. This codex was also discovered at the aforementioned Monastery of Saint Catherine in Egypt. It's been dated to the late Second Century AD. So why is this document missing the last page of the Gospel of Matthew, where the controversial verse, Matthew 28:19, should be found? Good question, right?

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 the 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 -- or as it's also known, the trinitarian formula -- in Matthew 28:19?

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 the verses 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."


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 Version of the 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 the following:

----- 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, it was assigned the new name of Codex Montfortianus, and it has been known by this name ever since.

On a side note, Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort was a French priest and preacher, who, sadly, is in large part responsible for the false practice of Mariology, which as I mentioned in earlier parts of this series is the glorification and worship of Mary -- Jesus' mother -- as "Mediatrix" and "Co-Redemptrix".

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.

According to the story, it was at this point that the Roman Catholic Church saw its opportunity to have the trinitarian formula -- or the triune phrase -- inserted into our beloved Bible. To be clear, no actual Greek manuscripts existed that contained the "Comma Johanneum". And so, the Roman Catholics simply had one of their Franciscan friars -- someone by the name of Froy -- create one for them. According to what I have read, this friar made a copy of a Tenth Century manuscript which did NOT contain the spurious text, and then he inserted the "Comma Johanneum" from a Latin manuscript, thus creating what became known as Codex 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 in 1 John 5:7-8.

Another source also states that Desiderius Erasmus never made such a promise to include the questionable text, and that it never really 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 anti-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, including by many Protestant denominations as well.

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 reality of the situation is that the popes of Rome have rather quietly gone back to the opinion which was embraced by the early "Church Fathers". That is to say that the text which was inserted into 1 John 5:7-8 -- in other words, the "Comma Johanneum" -- is really spurious text. Yet how nice it would be if the dogmatic Protestant denominations would likewise follow suit and reject that questionable 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 remaining support that Catholic Trinitarians have for their bogus Holy Trinity doctrine is the word of their church. Quite frankly, that is not saying much. Thus, 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 some 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 form of the verse. By simply comparing the actual structure of certain verses, we can see how much Matthew 28:19 in its current form doesn't fit in with all of the rest, and appears quite out of place.

Previously, I noted the importance of the phrase "in my name". But let's re-examine a few verses from part six one more time, because those verses are an excellent example of comparative, or internal, criticism, and there is something in them which you may have missed earlier. Here they are again:

"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."


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


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


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 contradiction to Jesus supposedly using the triune phrase at the end of Matthew chapter twenty-eight? In other words, in Matthew 28:19 above.

In other words, emphasizing that we are saved in the Name of Jesus, and that we also receive the Holy Spirit in the Name of Jesus -- which is what true baptism by fire is -- but then suddenly turning around and stating that we must be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is rather 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 it seems that in so many words, Jesus is kind of 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 learned, 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 a lot of 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. When anyone was 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 other words, all the verses concerning 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 as well.

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. As I have already made clear, it just never happened.

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."


"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."


"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:"


"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."


"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:"


"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."


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 BBB Bible website. There are many treasures for you to discover.