Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Fellowship Hall
Facebook

Notices

Fellowship Hall The place to go for Fellowship & Fun!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old 02-16-2019, 02:28 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
Hastings Dictionary Bible -wild shoddy scholarship

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1898), (1963) Volume 1 “Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.” ... The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matt. 28:19 represents the exact words of Christ."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta View Post
So who penned the article for the Hastings Dictionary quote ? Each article is signed at the end.
Good point, now and when you made it earlier.

And I do not think FZ can give you an answer. He is plagiarizing secondary and tertiary sources and on the Hastings quotes they are a total mess, with missing "..." and various inserted parenthesis by who knows who, and very unclear sources.

That quote above could be from a Baptism article, or Trinity, or possibly Sacraments.
FZ is including two different editions, and the Hastings Bible Dictionary quotes he gives could include snippets from:

1898 - Alfred Plummer, Baptism
1909 - Charles Archibald Anderson Scott, Baptism
1910 - Kirsopp Lake, Baptism (Early Christians), (Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings)
1963 - Andrew Bruce Davidson, Trinity (possibly)

The 1910 by Kirsopp Lake has something similar to the "cumulative evidence" section:
Quote:
The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism is thus distinctly against the view that Mt 28:19 represents the ipsissima verba of Christ in instituting Christian baptism.
https://books.google.com/books?id=oEATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA380
Keep in mind that Kirsopp Lake was possibly the strongest ally to Conybeare.

And I dealt with some of the quoting problems involving Hastings Dictionary, just the other day. FZ had another quote that he plagiarized from somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
More problems of not having read the section, misrepresentation and apparent plagiarism.

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

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.
And Tim Hegg dealt with one of the scholarly disasters around the Hastings Dictionary entry here:

Quote:
Matthew 28:19
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος'
A Text-Critical Investigation (2006)
https://torahresource.com/pdf-articl...estigation.pdf

Willis also quotes from Hastings Dictionary of the Bible in order to provide proof that scholars generally regard the tripartite phrase of Matthew 28:19 to be a late Catholic addition. However, if one consults the article itself,6 one discovers that the quote given is extracted from a list of four general hypotheses offered by scholars regarding the tripartite phrase, a hypothesis which the author of the article (Alfred Plummer) rejects!

6.James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of the Bible 4 vols (Scribners, 1905), 1.241–42
https://torahresource.com/pdf-articl...estigation.pdf
Apparently Clinton D. Willis was a major player in creating the scholarship disaster.

And Scott's point is 100% true. The first issue, on any of these Encyclopedia or Bible Dictionary articles, after trying to identify the article, is to identify the author. Generally right at the end, and if it is initials, there is a spot in front cross-referencing initials and names.

None dare call this scholarship.

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

grace in the wonderful name of Jesus!
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-16-2019 at 02:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 02-16-2019, 08:04 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
an example of Hastings shoddy scholarshp

We will switch gears a bit here from the FZ references to general referencing.

Some of the Hastings references have given a page number without a year, title or name of author. Here is an example.

Quote:
Feeding the Inner-Man (2009)
By Ralph J. Mcintyre
https://books.google.com/books?id=gTr363OIl-EC&pg=PA34

BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME
According to History

...

E. HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Vol. 2, pgs. 377-379 Christian baptism was administered using the words, “In the name of JESUS.” The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in Early Church History. Baptism was always in the name of the LORD JESUS until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.

G. HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Vol. 2, pg 377
(Acts 2:38). Name was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership. Therefore, one being baptized in JESUS' name became His personal property. “Ye are Christ’s” (1 Corinthians 3:23).
Here the Hastings article is

Baptism (New Testament) by James Vernon Bartlet (1863-1940).in the 1910 edition above that also has the Kirsopp Lake material.

You can see a bit of matching text:

Quote:
that ‘name’ was an ancient synonym for ‘person-’ ... The one became thereby the personal property of tho other, - p. 377

The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort is not similarly suggested, in spite of 2 Co 13:16. - p. 378
Clearly we do not have quotes, and snippets sans context are mixed in with commentary.

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

Take this bogus claim, from the misquote:

Quote:
"The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in Early Church History."
You will find this faux reference up on Apostolic sites.

Apostolic Archives, International
http://www.apostolicarchives.com/art...925/180090.htm

It seems to exist back even in 1975, I may register for a trial to check more closely.
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/414777212/

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

A tract accredited to Nathaniel Andrew Urshan, and published by Harvestime, had some mangled quotes:

Quote:
SCRIPTURAL AND HISTORICAL BAPTISM
by: Rev. N. A. Urshan
http://www.oocities.org/robert_upci/...cal_baptis.htm

In addition, Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2, page 377: Christian baptism was administered using the words "In the name of Jesus." Out of the same Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2, page 378: The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early church history. From the same volume, page 389, note: Baptism was always in the name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr when the Triune formula was used.

...

Let me go back to Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, Volume 2, page 377, which concerns the teaching of Acts 2:38: Name was an ancient synonym for "person." Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to ownership.
As an example, ere the article in use for the p. 389 ref is the one by Kirsopp Lake, here is text from the Encyclopedia of Religion:

Quote:
The earliest known formula is 'in the name of the Lord Jesus,’ or some similar phrase; this is found in the Acts, and was perhaps still used by Hermas, but by the time of Justin Martyr the trine formula had become general. p. 389
Various changes in this doctored "quote" have greatly distorted the history. Read the two carefully.

One tract was named:

Quote:
"Water Baptism According To The Bible And Historical References."

Here is how it was noted in one book, with the author Lewis E. Manuwal (1918-2004)

Manuwal, Lewis, “Water Baptism According to the Bible and Historical References
(End Time Ministries, Hazelwood, Missouri) p.6

Oneness Pentecostal Churches: Their Doctrine and Practice
(2002)
By Bruce Tucker
https://books.google.com/books?id=zrB9ZUcuthgC&pg=PA51
You can see that this 2002 book by Bruce Tucker properly ripped to shreds some of the improper citation techniques, with the Hastings material being center-stage.

On p. 54 the discussion shifts to:

"They Use Sources Which Deny The Authenticity Of Matthew 28:19."

And none of this misquoting and other deceptive and false citation methods were at all necessary. They do leave a scholastic stain. Has the current material been checked? Have the perps, or their spiritual heirs, ever given a public acknowledgment, correction and apology? What current historical material from Oneness sources can truly be trusted as accurate? Do we have to check books like:

Quote:
A History of Oneness
Throughout the Centuries
(Baptism in Jesus Name, the Godhead in Christ)
By Harry A. Peyton
Here, currently online, you can see a generally accurate tract falling down with faux citations at the end, none of which tell you the date or the author or the name of the section. The attempt to check for accuracy and context requires a lot of special effort.

Quote:
WATER BAPTISM
according to
THE BIBLE
and
HISTORICAL REFERENCES
That relate to doctrines and practices of the Early Church, 33-100 A.D.
compiled by Lewis Manuwal
http://www.newbeginningchurch.com/baptism.htm

Britannica Encyclopedia - 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365 - Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to words Father, Son & Holy Ghost in 2nd Century.

Canney Encyclopedia of Religion - page 53 - The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion - Volume 2 - Christian baptism was administered using the words, "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always in the name of Jesus until time of Justin Martyr, page 389

Catholic Encyclopedia - Volume 2, page 435 - Here the authors acknowledged that be baptismal formula was changed by their church.

Schaff - Herzog Religious Encyclopedia - Volume 1, page 435 - The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus.

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible - page 88 - It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus or Lord Jesus.
You can see the residue of the mangling of the Justin Martyr reference.

The other statements may be true, and they may more or less represent their source, but as they stand they are not real scholarship references.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-16-2019 at 09:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 02-16-2019, 09:48 AM
FlamingZword's Avatar
FlamingZword FlamingZword is offline
Yeshua is God


 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,158
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta View Post
So who penned the article for the Hastings Dictionary quote ? Each article is signed at the end.

The cumulative evidence of TC is consistent: there is no textual variant in Mt. 28:19.

Each of the Gospels contains unique wording and phrases. The wording in Matthew is no different. That would fit into the literary criticism category.
That there is no textual variant of Mt. 28:19 does not signify anything if they are all copies of the same prior incorrect translation from the Hebrew.

Yes each gospel contains unique wording and phrases, but those words are consistent with the gospel itself. The gospel of Matthew always pointed toward the name of Jesus, so it is totally inconsistent that at the end, it points away from the name of Jesus.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 02-16-2019, 09:55 AM
FlamingZword's Avatar
FlamingZword FlamingZword is offline
Yeshua is God


 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,158
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

In the magazine “The Prophet” in the article “How I got to it” (1899) p. 146 by Doctor Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie it is written “The Baptismal Formula. ― “Is not the Baptismal Formula, as it stands in the Gospels, an evident interpolation, such as, for instance…also the statement of the Trinity which is on all hands conceded to be spurious [i.e.1 Jn. 5:7]…It must be acknowledged that where the Baptismal Formula stands, it seems to have been added later, just as the latter passage, in order to make more definite what seemed symbolic of the doctrine.” (Vol. 1, May, No. 4, p. 146)
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 02-16-2019, 10:13 AM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood too


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39,122
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
That there is no textual variant of Mt. 28:19 does not signify anything if they are all copies of the same prior incorrect translation from the Hebrew.

Yes each gospel contains unique wording and phrases, but those words are consistent with the gospel itself. The gospel of Matthew always pointed toward the name of Jesus, so it is totally inconsistent that at the end, it points away from the name of Jesus.
Again, this isn’t evidence, but question begging. Matthew was NEVER orinally penned in Hebrew. Why because Hebrew was reduced to a liturgical language by the first century AD. The lingua franca was Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. It is the misconception of Yahwists, and Yahshuites to Judize Christendom. Matthew 28:19 stands in its oringinal traditional form. It teaches us that the NAME is Jesus. That the name of Jesus covers all three titles, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. That Matthew isn’t some botched up, cut up, pasted up scroll. Which needed FZ to come along to straighten it out for us while calling Jesus, Yashua.
Because after all that is the real agenda here. It just isn’t the book of Matthew under attack here. But any sort of Hellenization of the first century Judaism. Your entire New Testament is coming under attack by Judizers like my friend FZ. Again, logic dictates that if one part of Matthew is spurious what then of other passages? Other books of the New Testament? FZ has produced nothing in the way of strong argument for an original Hebrew Only Matthew. Everything concerning FZ’s argument is based solely on conjecture. That isn’t good research, but just wishful thinking of a Judizer.
__________________
“Burn the Boats!!!” — Hernan Cortes
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 02-16-2019, 05:06 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
In the magazine “The Prophet” in the article “How I got to it” (1899) p. 146 by Doctor Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie
This reference is fine.

My Message and how I Got to It... (1899)
Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie
https://books.google.com/books?id=y93N2xdMSKoC&pg=PA146

And is a reasonable read, without any substance about mansuscripts and early church writers..
However, Guthrie was pretty flaky.

Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie (1871-1940)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Sylvan_Guthrie

It is hard to determine if Henry Howard Linton is a pseudonym.

Here in his book from Guthrie there is rattling off by Linton his "Scripture Suicide" approach to attacking the scriptures.

All sorts of wild stuff, with the Linton question.

The Fusionist Bible; Or, The Universal World-religion's Index to the Bible (1914)
https://books.google.com/books?id=klpCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26

However, int the Message book, there seems to be interesting material about the Nicene Creed, Athanasius and Arius and such.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-16-2019 at 05:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 02-16-2019, 10:00 PM
FlamingZword's Avatar
FlamingZword FlamingZword is offline
Yeshua is God


 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,158
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa View Post
Again, this isn’t evidence, but question begging. Matthew was NEVER orinally penned in Hebrew.
Your statement is disputed by many ancient writers, I have already given you some names of who they were, but in case you have forgotten here is a small list again.

Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”
Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”
Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned
Now who oshall rest.”
Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”

Now who would know better if there was a Hebrew gospel of Matthew, you who are two thousand years removed from the gospel or these gentlemen who were only removed about a century later?
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 02-17-2019, 01:43 AM
Scott Pitta's Avatar
Scott Pitta Scott Pitta is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Wisconsin Dells
Posts: 2,941
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

The argument for a original Hebrew Matthew will gain steam when actual manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew are discovered. None have surfaced in 2000 years.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 02-17-2019, 02:25 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,408
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
Now who would know better if there was a Hebrew gospel of Matthew,
Jerome knew quite a bit about the Hebrew Matthew, and, when it was still extrant, it was a different work than our canonical Matthew.

Pure Bible Forum
Jerome and the Hebrew Matthew (not canonical Matthew)
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...=2291#post2291

(I've improved that page tonight.)

We can discuss more later, but anyone interested in the Hebrew Matthew can now find good one-stop shopping. I do hope to add more from Ben Smith, Johann Michaelis and other sources, and maybe add a bit on the ultra-corrupt Shem-tob 14th century anti-Christian edition.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-17-2019 at 02:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 02-17-2019, 07:02 AM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Unvaxxed Pureblood too


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 39,122
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
Your statement is disputed by many ancient writers, I have already given you some names of who they were, but in case you have forgotten here is a small list again.

Papias 150-170 AD “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.”
Ireneus 170 AD “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”
Clement of Alexandria 150 AD -215 AD “Which also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews: He who marveled shall reign, and he who reigned
Now who oshall rest.”
Origen 210 AD “The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.”

Now who would know better if there was a Hebrew gospel of Matthew, you who are two thousand years removed from the gospel or these gentlemen who were only removed about a century later?
Sorry, but NONE of them say that the Gospel according to Matthew was ORIGINALLY penned in Hebrew. Papias, was being quoted by another historian. We have nothing originally written by Papias. Papias' quote aso goes on to say that Matthew was translated as well as they could. Meaning that MATTHEW wasn't translated word for word. That it would of been the worst of the Gospel renderings. Clement of Alexandria is saying "also is written in the gospel according to the Hebrews." How do you get "according to" to mean "written in?" Origen's quote is also disputed. But, FZ you sure do a pretty good job disputing the credibility of the New Testament. Make sure you never take your show on the road and bump into Rabbi Tovia Singer.
__________________
“Burn the Boats!!!” — Hernan Cortes
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Counterfeit Gospels Socialite Fellowship Hall 4 12-05-2010 06:51 AM
What if all we had was the Gospels? Timmy Deep Waters 18 11-08-2010 05:51 PM
Lost gospels KWSS1976 Fellowship Hall 12 04-08-2009 09:13 AM
In the Four Gospels why do they Differ concerning the Resurrection... revrandy Fellowship Hall 2 01-22-2008 04:26 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.