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
  #251  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:14 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 703
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:58 PM
FlamingZword's Avatar
FlamingZword FlamingZword is offline
Yeshua is God


 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,078
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

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.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:53 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 703
Harnack jumps around

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-12-2019 at 12:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:20 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 703
Polish reference missing - Google translate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
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.)

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-12-2019 at 12:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:26 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 703
Eduard Karl August Riehm -German needs translation

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
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.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-12-2019 at 12:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 02-12-2019, 10:20 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 703
one site explaining the Matthew 28:19 controversy

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.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-12-2019 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:12 PM
FlamingZword's Avatar
FlamingZword FlamingZword is offline
Yeshua is God


 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,078
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

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”
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 02-13-2019, 02:33 AM
Scott Pitta's Avatar
Scott Pitta Scott Pitta is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Wisconsin Dells
Posts: 2,234
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

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.
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:19 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 703
Johannes Heinrich Scholten - anti-supernaturalist

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
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”
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-13-2019 at 10:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 02-14-2019, 01:59 AM
FlamingZword's Avatar
FlamingZword FlamingZword is offline
Yeshua is God


 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,078
Re: Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Pitta View Post
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.
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 07:51 AM
What if all we had was the Gospels? Timmy Deep Waters 18 11-08-2010 06:51 PM
Lost gospels KWSS1976 Fellowship Hall 12 04-08-2009 10:13 AM
In the Four Gospels why do they Differ concerning the Resurrection... revrandy Fellowship Hall 2 01-22-2008 05:26 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by shag
- by Esaias
- by Esaias

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.