Matthew 28:19 from a Bible of 1568
While at Trinity College, Oxford, I spent some time at the Old Library. There is a Bible from 1568 there, which I read to see the rendition of Matthew. Here are some important images for you to review.
While at Trinity College, Oxford, I spent some time at the Old Library. There is a Bible from 1568 there, which I read to see the rendition of Matthew. Here are some important images for you to review.
Wow, these are almost 500 years old, pretty antique! Wouldn’t it be so difficult to read those texts?!
The quality of the books are amazing. I have a “Strongs” type of concordance in Dutch from around 1670. [It’s called a “Trommius”] and still in mint condition. They made their books more durable back then. You get used to reading that type of text. But is not as fast reading as our “Times New Roman” 🙂
That is amazing. As Ester said, I would have difficulty reading that. However, as I followed out Matt. 28:19, I realized that they had used the symbol for “and” instead of spelling it out. Do the Hebrew and Greek use a symbol for “and”? Is writing out the word “and” a modern day custom?
As far as I know the Hebrew doesn’t use short forms. Words and even the letters and spaces in between are sacred.
But the Greek does once in a while. Apparently sometimes they would use for example the first letter for the word “and” [“kai” in Greek] instead of the whole word. The Greek also uses a special form for worlds related to God. Instead of Theos they would write “TS” with a line above it. All in Greek of course 🙂
Very interesting. Thanks, Rein.
Shalom, Skip!
In reading Matthew 28:19 I see that the Trinitarian baptismal blessing is present. Some suggest that this was an addition to earlier texts which only have “in my name” – is this the issue you are addressing with these photos?
Blessings!
Yes, one of them. But this Bible is only 450 years old. We need to look much earlier.
I’ll stick with Hebrew and Greek. I think they are easier to read than the Olde English! 🙂
Maybe not so if you were reading the Greek or Hebrew from the same period.
There were no “s”s on that page in Matthew! No “s” in 1568! Wow!
Back then, ‘s’ were written like an ‘f’!
I have an original edition of the Second Series of Spurgeon’s Sermons dated 1868. And also my grandfather’s very well marked-up Greek New Testament dating back to around 1920. It’s the eleventh printing of the 1904 translation by Eberhard Nestlé (no Aland yet) and distributed by the British and Foreign Bible Society. Plus a complete volume of Shakespeare’s work dated 1880. It has the smallest print I have ever seen. It looks more like a swarm of ultra-small gnats on each yellowed page rather than actual print. I’m just estimating, but if I had to guesstimate a size of the font, it would be in the range of 0.25-0.50. Remember a common font used in books and business today is around 11-12.
And I thought these were olde books! 🙂 I think I am going to have to reevaluate my definition of olde…. 😉
Yes, and this isn’t the oldest book in the Trinity Danson Library. There is a HAND-Written one from about 1400.
Skip
So what did you conclude?
That the baptismal formula was in tact in 1541 and that a few minor changes have been made to the English text since then, so we must press further back in the history – unfortunately to resources not readily available to me.
I checked the codex Sinaiticus (c. mid-4th centuary) and it looks like it was in there as well. Although the following is noted on the codex website: In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.
Since Hadrian burned books in 130-135 AD, what are the chances of discovering what the text really said? Unless we look at some of the early translations in other languages that supposedly were done from the original texts.
All praise and glory to the… king?!? Notice in the title page that it’s the King who distributes the Word of God–since he’s the only one who listens to God. See the small illustration of him as the only one who looks to God above. All the message ribbons go to him. Not even the priests listen or look to God.
The picture is a message of what the people should believe. In effect a political message.
All the people are expected to proclaim “God save the King-Vivat Rex.” I don’t see a message that the people give any praise to God.
A friend posted this saying to my Facebook page:
YOU KNOW YOU’RE A HISTORY FAN WHEN
YOU STILL GET UPSET THINKING ABOUT
THE LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA
I’m no historian, Tanya, but the thought of all that knowledge, all that wisdom and effort–oh my. As a writer I am more than upset thinking about the Library of Alexandria and dream of somebody someday finding it was stashed safely somewhere.
In that section of Matthew, I am most impressed by:
Lo! Yahshua IS with us ALWAY, UNTIL the end of the world!
He wanted his disciples to go forth into all the world, teaching them and then baptizing them … and then in beginning of Mark’s gospel we see the picture of what this means: the people confess their sins after having learned Torah and understanding what they have transgressed… they confess their understanding of right behavior and the ways in which they have missed the mark, and then they seek remission of the judgement for these transgressions through belief in the Father, the Son and the HOly Spirit… which all provide the comfort of truth and the power to align with the comforting truth, wherein there is mercy. Yahshua preached repentence, wherein is grace.
SKIP: In the photo of the drawing, there are myriad banners saying VIVAT REX … what do those words mean? Is that latin for ETERNAL LIFE? …. In that drawing I think I’m seeing top left, the truth coming out of Mount Sinai on banners to elders who present the words to the king who passes them along to the catholic priests who pass them (quite changed by now) along to the people… who are saying VIVAT REX… maybe that means LONG LIVE THE KING… ? ….. So, the church of england used the presentation of the bible to be read throughout the kingdom as a method of encouraging worship of the king of england instead of the Melek Tzedeq ?
This was a beautiful way to enjoy a dusty, inky, leathery booklover’s dream from the comfort of my own north central texas air conditioned hideaway 🙂 Thank you!
It means “Long Live the King” according to the on-line Latin dictionary.
Constantine, a worshiper of Mithra, Tammuz and Zeus, til the day he died, decided to commission the copying of the New Testament text from the original Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures. He paid for this process, and the resulting Greek text was warmly referred to as “The Byzantine Text”. Yet somehow, the copying of the text systematically removed even more of the, “faith once delivered to the saints”. The names of towns and Biblical Holidays were changed, and at times transliterations were used instead of translations.
Although little of this editing affected the overall context, a few things did. For example, if there is no other name whereby men must be saved, would not the name of the Savior be important? The name is a very Hebrew one, Yahushua. The translators came up with Iesous(ee-ay-sooce’), the greek word for Zeus, that later translated into Jesus. It is neither a translation or a transliteration of Yahushua, it was a blasphamous change. When translating Mashiyach(Messiah) into Christos(the generic deity they gave to all their pagan gods), and later into Christ, they came up terms with the same meaning, “the annoited one”.
In addition to mistranslating key terms, the translators apparently deleted and added verses here and there to reinforce their own doctrines. In Matthew 28:19 of the Byzantine text, we read…”baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
This verse does not even exist in any manuscript dated earlier than the Byzantine text of Constantine. Strangly, in each of the three existing pre-Constantine manuscripts, the last page is mysteriously missing; they are gone. The only reliable source is Matthews Hebrew Gospel and the Aramaic; it says “baptize them in My name(Yahushua),” not in the name of the Father and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You may not have gotten that, so I’ll repeat it. The last page in all three original Greek manuscripts which are older than the Byzantine text(AD 325) that contain Matthew 28:19 are missing. They can’t be found! Who would steal the last page and why?
Even Eusebious of Caesarea, Constantine’s friend, in his most celebrated work “Ecclesiastical History”, quotes Matthew 28:19, “in my name”. In Book II of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2:
But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Messiah, who has said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME.”
Eusebius never quotes Matthew 28:19 as “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as it appears in modern Bibles, but always with the words, “in my name”. Why? Did you ever wonder why they needed a new formula for Baptism? All other Scriptures command believers to be baptized “in the name of Yahushua”.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Messiah Yahushua for the remission of sins, and ye will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”(Acts 2:38)
Did Peter make a mistake? Did he forget what Yahushua told him and the others prior to His ascension into Heaven? Or could it be that the formula, “in the name of the Yahushua,” was for the Hebrews, and the “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” formula was for the Greeks? The next Scripture:
“Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet he was fallen upon them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Yahushua)”(Acts 8:15,16)
Next we see Peter baptizing Greeks. Does he offer two formulas, one for the Greeks and the other for the Hebrew? No, he does not:
“For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then Peter answered, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Master. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days” (Acts 10:46-48)
Again, no he doesn’t. In fact, there’s not a single recorded case of anyone being baptized in the Byzantine formula, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
Every baptism in Scripture uses the formula, “in the name of Yahushua.”
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Master Yahushua”(Acts 19:5)
We would do well to ask why the early Congregations tolerate such blasphemous corrupting of the Word of God. First, the “Church” had a new, charismatic leader who happened to be the Roman Emperor, a man with a better “revelation.” Does that sound Gnostic? Secondly, removing the Hebrewness from the Scriptures rendered Constantine-style Christianity much less offensive to the pagans, the bulk of whom despised the Hebrews. Constantine was the ultimate politician, and he cultivated assimilation and mixture in his kingdom for the sake of peace among other reasons. The more people who found the gospel acceptable, the more likely they were to get “saved”. What could be better for his “church”.
Impressive. As for letter s, it was always pronounced as an s i but was written as an f (a tall variant) at the start or in the middle of a word. At the end of words, it was written as a modern s. 🙂