Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
Encyclopedia Biblica (1903), Vol. IV, Art. “Son of God” section 4698, #15 by Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures Nathanael Schmidt, “That the Trinitarian formula does not go back to Jesus himself is evident and recognized by all independent critics”
|
Yay! An accurate quote, just add
baptismal before formula and give the
recognised spelling.
Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archaeology, Geography and Natural History of the Bible, Volume 3 (1903)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_c...lW4C&pg=PA4697
Schmidt was clearly accepting the Conybeare position. Apparently an "independent critic" is one who bypasses the massive manuscript and ECW evidences.
Notice that the text proposed by Conybeare has no mention of baptism at all, and Conybeare had his own vector of transmission theory that competes with the Hebrew Matthew theory, based on the anti-missionary Shem-Tob of c. 1375 AD, for absurdity.
Threaded Mode
