Traditionally, Matthew 28:19 says:
‘...baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.’
There are reasons to suspect that these words (called the “baptism formula” or “the trinitarian formula”) are a later addition and that the text originally only said something like “in my name.” We can’t be sure about this – but scholars have good reasons to suspect it.
What are these reasons?
Well, it’s not because of Bible manuscripts. The words appear in all surviving Bible manuscripts (although it is absent from the 14th-century Hebrew translation by Shem Tob); however, even our earliest manuscripts don’t help us because we don’t have a single copy of this verse from before the 4th century. Yes, there is none. Those years are mostly a black box when it comes to the New Testament (we only have fragments and quotations in other writings from that era). If the words were added very early in the Christian era, we would not expect any surviving manuscripts to read differently.
So if there are no dissenting early manuscripts, why do we have suspicions? Due to other ancient writings and from other Bible verses:
1. The 4th-century bishop Eusebius quoted this verse without the extra words until the Council of Nicea.
He quoted it 18 times between 300 CE and 336 CE. At first, he quotes it as saying, ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’ As you can see, baptism or the formula is not mentioned.
However, the baptism formula then suddenly appears in Eusebius’ quotes. When? Right after the Council of Nicaea, at which the Church progressed toward the Trinity doctrine.
Could Eusebius have simply been paraphrasing? No, he appears to be making direct quotations, and his quotations agree with others. It is also interesting that the words changed after AD 325.
Interestingly, if these words are indeed spurious, it could even be Eusebius himself who helped insert them into the verse. He was one of the most important historical figures in the history of the Church. He was a powerful force in helping the Roman Emperor Constantine see the political advantages of ending the persecution of Christians and establishing Christianity as the official state religion. He was also involved in creating the Council of Nicaea itself.
Given his prominence and the timing, it’s possible that he was somehow involved in the insertion of these words – or at least knew those who were. We can’t know for sure, of course. If this all happened, it would be pretty ironic that it should be his own words that help to reveal the changes.
2. Luke 24:47 is somewhat of a parallel account, and it makes no mention of these words.
There it only reports: ‘Then in his name, [the message of] repentance for forgiveness of sins is to be preached in all the nations, starting from JeruSalem.’
The formula is not present, and there is no mention of baptism.
3. Acts 1:8 reports the same (or a similar) event and still fails to mention the words.
It says: ‘However, you will receive power when the Holy Breath comes over you, and you’ll be witnesses of me in JeruSalem, in all of Judea, in Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.’
Again, we see no mention of the trinitarian formula or baptism. Surely, if this were the true formula for baptism, then it would not have been forgotten and never mentioned again.
4. Acts 2:38 commands baptism in the name of Jesus only.
It says, ‘Repent, and each of you get baptized in the name of Jesus the Anointed One, so your sins can be forgiven. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Breath.’ It’s the same issue as above.
5. Acts 8:15, 16 reports people having been baptized in the name of Jesus only:
‘They went [to the Samaritans] and prayed for them to receive the Holy Breath, because it hadn’t come to any of them yet, although they had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.’
Again, no mention of it.
6. Acts 10:48 reports people being commanded only to be baptized in the name of Jesus:
‘So he commanded that they should be baptized in the name of Jesus the Anointed One.’
Yet again, the formula is missing.
7. Acts 19:5 describes people being baptized in the name of Jesus and no one else:
‘When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.’
Same again.
8. Romans 6:3 only mentions that people were baptized into Jesus and his death:
‘Don’t you realize that all that were baptized into the Anointed Jesus were also baptized into his death?’
Same again.
9. And finally, Galatians 3:27 mentions people being baptized into the Anointed One:
‘All who were baptized into the Anointed One have put on the Anointed One.’
...
So what happened?
If the words are not genuine, how did they get into the Bible?
Well, if that’s what really happened, then we can make a few educated guesses. They could only be inserted very early in Christianity when it was a small community in the 2nd or 3rd centuries (the 100s or 200s). The words must have gained popularity outside of the text before being added. But why add them at all?
Prominent bishops may have made it the official baptism formula to differentiate Christian and Gnostic baptisms. You see, forms of Gnosticism were the first large heresies in Christianity. Gnostics believed in Jesus (at least nominally) and may have even baptized people in Jesus’ name (like the apostles did in Acts), but many had different views about Jesus being “the Son,” and most held radically different views about the Father (the God of the Jews) and the identity of the Holy Breath/Spirit.
Some groups taught that Jesus wasn’t God’s Son as we understand it, but was instead a divine emissary or “Aeon,” or even just a normal man who had the “Christ spirit” (a separate person) descend upon him.
Most groups taught that the Father was not really God Almighty at all, but instead an evil, lesser god called the Demiurge who imprisoned our souls in material creation.
Beliefs about the Holy Breath/Spirit also varied, with some considering the Spirit to be a feminine divine being, Almighty God’s female consort, or an intermediary between God and mankind (instead of Jesus).
2 John 1:9 may be referring to these teachings:
For those who are running ahead and not remaining in the teaching of the Anointed One don’t really have God. However, those who stick with this teaching have both the Father and the Son.
Therefore, if the Gnostic groups also baptized people in Jesus’ name, a way to reject their views could be to baptize Christians “into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” This would show that the baptized person accepted orthodox Christian views that the Father was indeed God, Jesus was indeed the Son, and the Spirit was the same thing that descended upon Jesus at his baptism – not some feminine consort.
This formula was perhaps then inserted into scrolls of Matthew upon copying; it would show what Jesus really meant when saying to baptize in his name. Thus early Christians may have viewed the addition of the formula as an accurate expansion and explanation of Jesus’ words rather than any kind of fakery. In other words, true in meaning, even if not accurate word-for-word.
However, this is just speculation.
We’re not saying that the baptism formula in Matthew is definitely a later addition; perhaps it is genuine and original. The problem is that we can’t say for sure. We merely cross out the words in our translation to bring these issues to your attention.
Interestingly, the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica commented that the baptismal formula was not universal in early Christendom and may even have gained popularity through old pagan beliefs:
The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together. The Teaching of the Apostles, indeed, prescribes baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord—the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid. From Pope Zachariah (Ep. x.) we learn that the Celtic missionaries in baptizing omitted one or more persons of the Trinity, and this was one of the reasons why the church of Rome anathematized them; Pope Nicholas, however (858–867), in the Responsa ad consulta Bulgarorum, allowed baptism to be valid tantum in nomine Christi, as in the Acts. Basil, in his work On the Holy Spirit just mentioned, condemns “baptism into the Lord alone” as insufficient. Baptism “into the death of Christ” is often specified by the Armenian fathers as that which alone was essential.
Ursinus, an African monk (in Gennad. de Scr. Eccl. xxvii.), Hilary (de Synodis, lxxxv.), the synod of Nemours (A.D. 1284), also asserted that baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid. The formula of Rome is, “I baptize thee in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” In the East, “so-and-so, the servant of God, is baptized,” &c. The Greeks add Amen after each person, and conclude with the words, “Now and ever and to aeons of aeons, amen.”
We first find in Tertullian trine immersion explained from the triple invocation, Nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur: “Not once, but thrice, for the several names, into the several persons, are we dipped” (adv. Prax. xxvi.). And Jerome says: “We are thrice plunged, that the one sacrament of the Trinity may be shown forth.” On the other hand, in numerous fathers of East and West, e.g. Leo of Rome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylactus, Cyril of Jerusalem and others, trine immersion was regarded as being symbolic of the three days’ entombment of Christ; and in the Armenian baptismal rubric this interpretation is enjoined, as also in an epistle of Macarius of Jerusalem addressed to the Armenians (c. 330). In Armenian writers this interpretation is further associated with the idea of baptism into the death of Christ.
Trine immersion then, as to the origin of which Basil confesses his ignorance, must be older than either of the rival explanations. These are clearly aetiological, and invented to explain an existing custom, which the church had adopted from its pagan medium. For pagan lustrations were normally threefold; thus Virgil writes (Aen. vi. 229): Ter socios pura circumtulit unda. Ovid (Met. vii. 189 and Fasti, iv. 315), Persius (ii. 16) and Horace (Ep. i. 1. 37) similarly speak of trine lustrations; and on the last mentioned passage the scholiast Acro remarks: “He uses the words thrice purely, because people in expiating their sins, plunge themselves in thrice.” Such examples of the ancient usage encounter us everywhere in Greek and Latin antiquity.
— Encyclopædia Britannica 1911, volume III, page 365-366 (bold emphasis added by us)
...
Absence from Shem Tob’s Matthew
There is one old manuscript copy of Matthew that excludes the formula, the translation of Matthew by Shem Tob (or Shem Tov). Shem Tob was a 14th-century Rabbi from Spain who wrote a book called The Touchstone (Eben Boḥan), in which he argues against the belief of his neighboring Catholics that Jesus is God. His book includes a Hebrew translation of Matthew. The modern consensus is that Shem Tob translated it himself from the Latin Vulgate and distorted it in places.
However, others argue that his version of Matthew actually came from an older Hebrew version of Matthew, now lost, that descended from a very early Hebrew or Aramaic original. Could this be true? Perhaps.
The problem is that Shem Tob’s Matthew also has many differences that look like deliberate distortions. For example, numerous references to Jesus being the Messiah are also missing. So the entire text is under question and not widely respected. Further, other medieval Hebrew translations of Matthew contain both the missing formula and the missing references to Jesus’ being the Messiah.
So, while it’s possible that Shem Tob’s Matthew used an older lost Hebrew version that excluded the formula, we can’t say for sure.
Frequently Asked Questions
“Doesn’t the 1st/2nd century Didache quote the formula?
Our oldest copy of the Didache is from 900 years after it was first written. It is widely believed to have been used as a living document and updated in later years to reflect changing Church doctrine. Several things in the document indicate this. So, sadly, the Didache’s use of the formula does not resolve the issue.
Also, if you compare the Greek words in the Didache to Matthew 28:19, you can see that it is not an exact quote, as the words are slightly different to fit the context.
Didache: βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
Matthew 28:19: βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
“Doesn’t Tertullian quote the words at the turn of the 2nd century?”
No. He did so at the turn of the 3rd century, around the year 200 (yes, the 3rd century), approximately 170 years after Jesus’ death.
“Are you undermining the words of Jesus Christ?”
Hardly. Showing how the early Church may have tampered with Jesus’ words is not undermining Christ. If the Church really did insert these words later, then it is the Church that has “undermined the words of Jesus Christ.” It is our duty to lay out all the facts.
“Are you saying that everyone should only be baptized in the name of Jesus?”
No. Since we don’t know if these words are genuine or not, we can hardly make such a declaration. Besides, we are not a religion.
“Are baptisms using the trinitarian formula valid or invalid?”
This is not a question for a Bible translator.
“Will we ever know if the words are genuine or not?”
Perhaps. Biblical scholars may be lucky and gain access to previously undocumented manuscripts. Indeed, new technologies are already helping scholars to read previously illegible manuscripts. Such discoveries may one day help resolve the issue.
Changelog
Note that a previous version of this text included supposed quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia and Encyclopædia Britannica, which, while supplied to us in good faith, were inaccurate; they were actually paraphrased summaries representing someone’s personal interpretation of those sources. They have been removed, and we apologize for the mistake.