Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

[Steven Avery]

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.

[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.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

History of Dogma (1893) 3rd English edition, Vol. I footnote 75 & 76 by Dr. Adolph Harnack (1851-1930) Theologian and Church historian. “Matt. XXVIII. 19, is not a saying of the Lord. The reasons for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus, and has not the authority in the Apostolic age, which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself.”

In an earlier thread I went over a bit the fact that Harnack had taken a few differing opinions on the verse.

This footnote (the number is wrong above) can be read online here:

History of dogma
by Harnack, Adolf von, 1851-1930
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n105

Neil Buchanan is the translator, 1895.

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

The 1893 edition is translated by Edwin Knox Mitchell and does not have the footnote.

Outlines of the history of dogma (1893)
https://archive.org/details/outlines...rnrich/page/n6

"Baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit was esteemed as the mystery through which the sins of blindness are wholly set aside, and which only thenceforward, however, imposes obligations (mortal sins, committed after baptism, were considered unpardonable, and yet pardoning power was reserved for God who here and there exercises it upon the earth through inspired men.

See also:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n107
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n159
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n183
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092343882/page/n233

While the quote is fine, FZ using secondary sources without attribution has mangled the location of the reference.

The year of the edition is wrong, no page number is given, the footnote number is wrong, and from what I can see calling it the 3rd English edition looks wrong (it is the translation of the 3rd German edition.) Again, based on what I have seen again and again, I doubt that FZ actually looked at the reference. And he brought over errors from an unspecified source. Using secondary sources without referencing them is plagiarism, and is often caught when errors are carried over.

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

Here is Harnack in 1904

The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Volume 1 (1904)
By Adolf von Harnack
https://books.google.com/books?id=oc1CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA44

There is text and footnote, and it is quite a bit different.

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

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Here are statements from two catholic teachers.
Rev. Prof. Dr hab. Szymon Drzyżdżyk
Dr. Aleksandra Brzemia-Bonarek (Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow)

From the article "From Baptism in the Name of Jesus to Baptism in the Name of the Holy Trinity"

Did someone translate this from the Polish?

OD CHRZTU W IMI£ JEZUSA
DO CHRZTU W IMIS TROJCY SWISTEJ
Aleksandra Brzemia-Bonarek
Szymon Drzyzdzyk
http://bc.upjp2.edu.pl/Content/2575/...oj_dogmatu.pdf

If so, who and where?
You should give the actual title of the article as written.

And it looks like Google translate (which I call Google mangle.)

[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.

And I covered the problems in this reference.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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.

[Steven Avery]

Historical Evidence in favour of Matthew 28:19 and Response to Claims of Inauthenticity
http://www.asitreads.com/blog/2018/2...inauthenticity

Looks like part of the Adventist non-Trinitarian movement (at least not in the creedal sense.)

Some helpful material on this page, the ECW lists look similar to what has been developed by James Snapp and myself (and many years back, a fellow named Joe Viel). This web page takes a bit of a reactive, response, approach, however, he does have good value-added material on the higher criticism element, and some of the historical debate, and he has many of the ECW references.

This author, or someone on the website, used to be sympathetic to the Matthew 28:19 argumentation.

Just thought I would share this, for more context.

This whole issue is rarely touched in textual criticism realms, which are popular today. Although you do have occasional contributions by Peter Head, Jan Krans and others. (And I had a little discussion with Bart Ehrman on a textualcriticism forum.)

So I may dig into these various sources to improve what I have on the purebibleforum, which right now is dedicated mostly to the ECW references.

Matthew 28:19 -Ante-Nicene referencing (before Eusebius) - the Ehrman textual criticism discussion
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...ism-discussion

From the studies of the last weeks, there is a lot of new material.

[FlamingZword]

Die Taufformel (G) The Baptismal Formula (1884) by theologian Johannes H. Scholten, writes: “The mutual comparison of the texts of our first three Gospels and the critical study of their age thus lead to the conclusion that the account of the institution of baptism by Jesus in the canonical Gospel of Matthew was named after a relative later date must be accepted”

[Scott Pitta]

The whole issue is not touched because there is no issue. It may be a early church father issue. But it is not a TC issue.

No textual variant means it is not a TC issue.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Die Taufformel (G) The Baptismal Formula (1884) by theologian Johannes H. Scholten, writes: “The mutual comparison of the texts of our first three Gospels and the critical study of their age thus lead to the conclusion that the account of the institution of baptism by Jesus in the canonical Gospel of Matthew was named after a relative later date must be accepted”

Jan Hendrik Scholten (1811-1885)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Scholten

Through Scholten, Abraham Kuenen became interested in theology; Scholten was not then the radical theologian he became later. The two scholars in course of time created a movement resembling that of the Tübingen School in Germany. From his theology there "began to rise a different type of spirit, the spirit of absolute antisupernaturalism of the German idealistic kind."

You should give the location and spot:

Die Taufformel, Volume 43; Volume 156 (1885)
Johannes Henricus Scholten
https://books.google.com/books?id=2vIUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5

“Die gegenseitige Vergleichung der Texte unserer drei ersten Evangelien und die kritische Untersuchung über ihr Alter führen somit zu dem Schlusse, dass dem Bericht über die Einsetzung der Taufe durch Jesus in dem nach Matthäus benannten kanonischen Evangelium ein relativ spates Datum zuerkannt werden muss.” - p. 5

Since you have published this with the German rather than your mangled English from a puter translator.
http://www.oocities.org/fdocc3/quotations.htm

It is clear that in the reference here you plagiarized from Conybeare.
And you only worked off that secondary source.

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums, Volumes 1-2 (1900)
The Eusebian form of the Text Matth. 28,19.
By Fred. C. Conybeare, Oxford.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6-...J&pg=RA1-PA287

The Conybeare article has also been published as a separate PDF.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The whole issue is not touched because there is no issue. It may be a early church father issue. But it is not a TC issue.

No textual variant means it is not a TC issue.

We have only begun this, as we progress we will see more issues raised.