As I said, you gave 2 that quoted it differently which further undermines this evidence, against many that quoted it exactly as we have it.
Not a problem for me if that is what you want to believe. The formula exist only in that verse and is contrary to what the followers recorded in your scripture. Other historical figures quoted it differently which is in line with what the followers were teaching very shortly after the death of Yeshua.
Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. II (p. 263)
St. Ambrose "Unless a person has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost he can not retain the remission of his sins."
That is spot on to the version you currently have in your bibles but the actions soon after Yeshua's death say otherwise. The encyclopedia says this formula was "obligatory". It quotes Tertullian as saying "The law of baptism has been imposed and the form prescribed".
If what St. Ambrose and Tertullian say is correct then why didn't the disciples use this formula? (
rhetorical question) considering the following.
Acts 2:38
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.
Acts 4:10-12
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts 8:16
For He had not yet fallen upon any of them;
they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 19:3-5
And he said unto them, Unto
what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,
saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
We see this same formula, contrary to your version of Matt. 28:19, expressed at Galatians 3:27, Acts 10:48, Romans 6:1-4.
Luke 24:46-47
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.
I have no problem with investigating anything. But I think you would acknowledge that the evidence against it is too weak if not almost nonexistent.
Once again, it's not a problem if that is what you believe but it appears the early church did not feel the same way. They understood that baptizing "in the name of Jesus" instead of the supposed triune formula was not some isolated occurrence. Catholics writing about their history give credence to the verse Eusebius had which was contrary to other existing verses of the day.
Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. II (p. 263)
"Converts from Sebellianism were ordered by the First Council of Constantinople to be re-baptized because the doctrine of Sebellius that there was but one person in the Trinity had infected their baptismal form."
The two groups, the Paulianist and Photinians were ordered by the Council of Nicea and the Council of Arles to be rebaptized because they did not use the trinity formula. As you continue reading the Catholic history on page 263 it's obvious there were contrary teachings on baptism and other sects were baptizing in the name of Yeshua. As he commanded them to baptize in his name in order to be saved and is what his disciples did, even Paul it seems confirms this.
