Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[FlamingZword]

The Christian Ordinances (1883) written by Doctor of Divinity Christian Henry Forney. In Ch. 10 Dr. Forney discusses at length Mathew 28:19 he was highly skeptical of its authenticity, he also tells of how the corruption of texts including this one could have occurred in the early centuries.

[Scott Pitta]

We have no Greek manuscripts with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19.

There are no early Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew.

Until those 2 facts change, "pious conjecture" is the end result of your research.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

It is all talk until someone produces a Greek manuscript with a variant reading that supports your theory.

We have literally thousands of Greek, Latin, Syriac and versional manuscripts with the pure Bible text.

Why would it matter if a few mss. showed up with a corrupt reading?

Maybe you are talking about first or second century mss? Autographed by Matthew?

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The Christian Ordinances (1883) written by Doctor of Divinity Christian Henry Forney. In Ch. 10 Dr. Forney discusses at length Mathew 28:19 he was highly skeptical of its authenticity, he also tells of how the corruption of texts including this one could have occurred in the early centuries.

Have you read the Forney book?
I doubt it, as I do not see quotes that match up to your claims.

The Christian Ordinances: Being a Historical Inquiry Into the Practice of Trine Immersion, the Washing of the Saints' Feet and the Love-feast (1883)
Christian Henry Forney
https://books.google.com/books?id=W_ErAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA78

There is a bit of discussion of Matthew 28:19 on p. 82.

[Scott Pitta]

Steve, I agree. If a Hebrew Matthew autograph surfaces, we have something to discuss. If there were manuscripts with a variant reading of Mt. 28:19, we would have data to sort out.

Lacking both, there is little to discuss.

When there is rock solid evidence for the reading we have for this passage, why second guess it with literally no evidence at all ?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Im Namen Jesu (G) In the Name of Jesus (1902) by Wilhelm Heitmüller, theologian, calls Matthew 28:19 spurious and says: “It would be superfluous to show all over again that the direct institution of baptism through Jesus, as it is recounted in Mt 28, is historically untenable.” In this book Doctor Heitmüller argues from linguistics that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt and that the only linguistic text that would be correct is “in the name of Jesus.”

And I doubt that you ever looked at this work, and once again it looks like plagiarism:

The only quote is from a footnote in:

Baptism in the New Testament (2006)
By G. R. Beasley-Murray
https://books.google.com/books?id=9rVLAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA77

given by you without attribution.
And you should indicate who you are quoting.

For real context you would need to go to the book which has the dissertation.

"Im Namen Jesu", eine sprach-und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe, Inaugural-Dissertation...
Wilhelm Heitmüller
https://books.google.com/books?id=-5oksE6l0RoC&pg=PA270

Heitmüller actually questions a number of verses, but he does make some interesting points as well.

Before getting into the fascinating positive points, let me ask you for your source for:

a) calls Matthew 28:19 spurious
b) argues from linguistics that Matthew 28:19 is corrupt
c) only linguistic text that would be correct is “in the name of Jesus.”

Even if all this is a secondary source, you should indicate the source. And I am concerned that you do not even have a secondary source for the three snippets.

Also, if he calls the whole section ot the end of Matthew "spurious" (or probably spurious) that is very different than simply highlighting the one verse, or part of the verse. Scholastically, you would have to point out precisely what he questions.

Thanks!

===============================

Heitmüller has two other books that center largely on baptism.

One, in 1903, looks at Paul.

Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus: Darstellung und religionsgeschichtliche Beleuchtung
https://archive.org/details/taufeund...itgoog/page/n6

The other might have more material on our studies.

Taufe und Abendmahl im Urchristentum (1911)
https://archive.org/details/MN41701ucmf_13/page/n1

Wikipedia titles it as ("Baptism and Eucharist of the Apostolic Age')
which looks a little loose .

===============================

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Heitmüller actually questions a number of verses, but he does make some interesting points as well. Before getting into the fascinating positive points...

A review in Methodist Review discusses how important the actual name of Jesus may be.

Methodist Review
https://books.google.com/books?id=0tkWAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA818

"inner connection with Jesus .. real, mystical, and mysterious effect, such as exorcism of evil spirits, consecration, bestowing the Holy Spirit, union of the baptized with Jesus, and the like."

And how about remission of sins?

Somewhat similar here.

‘Into the Name of Jesus’: A Suggestion Concerning the Earliest Meaning of the Phrase (1974)
Lars Hartman
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...C76210A1885A0E

It does look like Heitmüller is acknowledging power in the name of Jesus! And that water baptism in Jesus name is a major element.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1898), (1963) Volume 1 “Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.”, “The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew.

More problems of not having read the section, misrepresentation and apparent plagiarism.

We have the 1898 edition online.
The key pages are 241-242.

A dictionary of the Bible; dealing with its language, literature, and contents, including the Biblical theology
https://archive.org/details/dictionb...1hast/page/240
p. 238-245

Baptism - Alfred Plummer (1841–1926)

(a) The Institution of Christian baptism is to be dated from Christ's farewell command, ‘ Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ (Mt 28-19). ... But here we are at once struck by the fact that, in spite of Christ’s command to baptize into the name of the Trinity, no mention is made of the Trinity, but only of ‘ the name of Jesus Christ. ... Moreover, there is no mention in NT of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity; and the expression ‘baptized into Christ’ (Ro 6:2, Gal 3:27; comp. 1 Co l:13 6;11) is more in harmony with the passages in the Acts than with the divine command as recorded Mt 28:19. ... (4) The original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ ’ or ‘ the Lord Jesus. ’ Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development. After the one mention of it, Mt 28:19, we do not find it again until Justin Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that in the Gospel: ... It is probable that, when the Trinitarian formula had become usual, it was regarded as of divine authority, and was by some attributed to Christ Himself. This tradition is represented in Mt 28:19, and is perhaps an indication that the Firs Gospel in its extant form is later than the destruction of Jerusalem. ... It is a violent hypothesis to suppose that words of such importance as Mt 28:19 were never spoken by Christ, and yet were authoritatively attributed to Him in the First Gospel. ... the baptismal formula in Mt 28:19 is in all authorities without exception. It is as well attested as any saying of Christ which is recorded in one Gospel only. ... It is reasonable to believe that Christ prescribed the Trinitarian formula, and that His command was obeyed.

Totally different than what was represented. Most of what is given as quotes are not there. A scholastic disaster.

===========================

Possibly the missing quotes are in the 1963 edition. We know that FZ has not checked, since he would have quoted more accurately. If they are there, I would like to know who wrote them, since only the first quote can be attributed to Plummer, edited by Hastings and Selbie. And get the larger context.

Clearly "viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew" is simply reporting the views of Conybeare and some others. So there is nothing special in the quotes. If that had been written in 1898, it would have some interest, since the Conybeare papers came later.

[Scott Pitta]

We used Hastings Dictionary in college.

If someone is to quote from it, they should identify who wrote the individual article. They are all signed.

When people quote it without mentioning who wrote the article, I assume they have never cracked open a Hastings Dictionary. Quotes of quotes. There is nothing like pulling a book off a shelf and reading a quote in its context.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Professor Eduard Karl August Riehm in his Handwörterbuch des Biblischen Altertums für gebildete Bibelleser (G) Dictionary of biblical antiquity for educated readers of the Bible (1884) p. 1620, puts Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5 and Romans 6:3 as the real mode of baptism and dismisses Matthew 28:19 as not authentic.

Eduard Karl August Riehm - (1830-1888)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Karl_August_Riehm

More problems with plagiarism from secondary sources, used without attribution.

First, this is in Vol. 2, and the baptism section is p. 1644-1646.

Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums für gebildete Bibelleser, Volume 2 (1884)
By Eduard Karl August Riehm
https://books.google.com/books?id=21...MAAJ&pg=PA1646

The verses are given in the first column of p. 1646.

And I am skeptical about the claim that Riehm "dismisses Matthew 28:19 as not authentic". However I will defer to any of our readers who are good on the 1800s German.