Benadam74′s Blog

The Conclusion of Matthew by Hans Kosmala 10-11

X

Summarizing the foregoing observations we may say that there are many points in favour of the Eusebian conclusion of Matthew, far more than for the traditional conclusion.

The “name of Jesus” stands in the centre of early Christian preaching and it would be surprising if Matthew’s Gospel would take so little notice of this important fact as to immerse it completely in the Trinitarian baptism formula. We have seen that this formula is late beyond any doubt and this alone makes its appearance at so early a stage a historical impossibility. The only explanation we can give is that it has been inserted here by the later Church, because it needed it in that Gospel which was the most widely used in its liturgy. This statement cannot be scientifically proved, because we have no other text tradition than that of the Church. It can only be corroborated from the records outside this textus receptus of the ending of Matthew. In making this insertion the Church was in its own rights, for it was its own Gospel. But even though the Church took this liberty, the faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was not a late invention of the Church, for it was already contained in nuce in the New Testament itself, only that it was not yet expressed in a baptism formula.

The historical evidence derived from the writings of the New Testament is that baptism in the earliest Christian Church was performed “in the name of Jesus (Christ)” as a baptism of repentance. On the other hand it was not the most important concern of those who taught. Jesus himself, as far as we are informed, did not baptize; this was done by his disciples. Paul only baptized a few (1 Cor. 1, 14-16), but expressly declared that Christ had not sent him to baptize but to preach the gospel. It appears that Paul fulfilled the last commission of his Lord in accordance with the conclusion as preserved by Eusebius.

The Eusebian conclusion confirms the object of the Gospel, namely, to give an account of the person of Jesus, of his name and his authority, and of his message to the world. In fact, no conclusion could serve this purpose better. The personality of Jesus stands in the middle of both the narrative of the Gospel and its conclusion. It is also through this conclusion that all statements in the Gospel about the name and the authority of Jesus appear in a clearer and brighter light.

XI

We are fortunate in having a short commentary on the last verses of Matthew by Eusebius himself in his De Theophania (V, 46) 16). In concluding our own observations we can hardly do better than to quote an extract from it. The text to which it refers is the shorter one. Eusebius would not have had the courage to write these comments if this text had not been the recognized conclusion of Matthew at the time of his writing but some text he had prepared himself. He says:

“But he who used nothing human or mortal, see how in truth he again conceded the oracle of God, in the word which he spoke to his disciples, the weak ones, saying, Go ye and make disciples of all the peoples…These things then (scil. How can we do this? How preach to the Romans, etc.) The disciples of our saviour would either have aid or thought; so by a simple addition of a word, he resolved the sum of those things of which they doubted, the sum of them he committed to them in that he said, ye conquer in my name. For it was not that he ordered them simply and without discriminating, to go and make disciples of all the peoples, but with the important addition, that he said in my name. For because of the power of his name did all this come about, even as the Apostle said, God has given him a name more excellent than all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, which is in heaven and in earth and under the earth …”.

END