|
Chofi —
Testimony for the authenticity of this verse in Matthew goes all the way back to circa 50 A.D.
In the Didache, Chapter 7, we find instructions to baptize using the Trinitarian formula:
"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water"
Didache, Chapter 7
This document dates as early as 50 A.D., putting it earlier than many books of the New Testament and squarely in the Apostolic age. It's repeated in 170 A.D. and circa 200 A.D. See:
Also the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger was inaccurate, it really said:
| It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our 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 comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." |
Thus the text that comes from Rome is the Creed, not the baptismal formula or the verse; and the authority cited is Matthew 28:19, which is referred to as the words of Christ.
Now, to your question. The Catholic Church would not consider itself to have the authority to add to Scripture, (by which I mean to say, compose fresh text and append it) nor to modify it.
It does, however, have the authority to recognize which received texts are authentic. Given that we have evidence this text goes back to 50 A.D., not ruling out that its origins are earlier,
it certainly seems that it is authentic.
The reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia is not useful; there are many works by that name and, without an author or date, it's hard to pin it down. I looked at the most popular one from the early twentieth century and found no such quote.
As for the quote:
| "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." |
from Cuneo, this seems to be taken out of context. This text starts:
"The stronghold of the negative view, however, is set in the network of knotted problems suggested by the passages in the Acts and the Letters of St. Paul.
These passages seem to point to the ..." |
Here Google Books cuts it off. It seems that the book is presenting someone else's point of view here. We don't know if he's going to refute it or not, but it appears that this quote is being taken out of context as well. Note that he says seem which implies that it doesn't really, or at least appears to but has qualifications.
Then with:
| "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." |
This seems to me an argument from silence. There is no trace, so they say, that the Apostles obeyed Jesus's command.
- Why does there have to be?
- Why should we have this?
- There are many things mentioned in the Gospels that we have no evidence of in Acts or the epistles, and why should we?
They served different purposes. Here you are playing off one Scripture against the other; not content that this formula is mentioned in Matthew, it is contended that, well, it's not mentioned anywhere else, so it must not be true.
- Does everything have to be duplicated in Scripture before we believe it?
So we have two quotes we know were munged or taken out of context, one quote that cannot be found, and another reference (the Jerusalem Bible) that is likewise vague enough to be impossible to verify. By the way, the Jerusalem Bible is not a scholarly work, it's just an ordinary Bible.
Note that I am giving you very specific references that are easy to look up in context, in contrast to these vague citations and obscure books that web site provided.
With respect to why there are different formulations between Acts and Matthew, Acts, which frequently discusses people who had the baptism of John, and not the baptism of Jesus, uses the term baptized in the name of Jesus as a shorthand way to distinguish this Baptism from John's Baptism. Plus, given how often they mention it, it would be awkward to use baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit every time it was mentioned.
The Acts references are not intended as a liturgical baptismal formula. That is what Matthew is intended to be.
I hope this helps.
Eric
|
