Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation 2
 

This is a new thread that I am starting to inform those who want to have honest respectable debate about the issue of Matthew 28:19 being an interpolation.

In this thread I will not tolerate any demeaning or vicious attack upon my person. if anyone engages in such behavior I will not respond to such posts.
I am here to debate this issue and I will not tolerate any bashing of me.

Here are the rules,

1. No personal attacks upon my person or my motives.
2. There will no baseless accusations, so ask about something and do not assume things.
3. I do not mind honest questions and clear objections.
4. I don't have all the answers to everything, so sometimes my answer will be "I don't know"
5. I have a vast collection of information from over 15 years, I begun studying this issue sometime before 1999.
6. I will post information from what I have collected on my own or was sent to me.
7. Because I do not want to cite very long citations, I will sometimes shorten such citations for brevity sake.
8. I am human and therefore I might be mistaken in some things, so if I am mistaken about something I will correct it.
9. I open this new thread and will start from where I left of in my past postings. so if you want to catch up. you may go to my old threads.

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

Continuing with more information
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) p. 392, reads; in vol. 4, p. 2637 under “Baptism,” says, “Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus.”

A History of the Christian Church (1918) p. 58 by Professor of Ecclesiastical History Williston Walker, at Yale University writes: “This appears in the Trinitarian baptismal formula which was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.”, “There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Mat. 28:19. That text is early [but not original], however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed and the practice recorded [or interpolated] in the Teaching [Didache] and by Justin”. (p. 95).
We can also read that this baptismal formula was the prototype of the Apostles creed which was created in opposition to the heretics of that time which baptized in the name of Jesus. What many people are not aware of is that the Marcionites and other early groups which the Catholic Church denounced as heretical baptized their believers in the name of Jesus.
“While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19 the earliest known form of the so called Apostles' Creed. What antecedents in Asia Minor, if any, it may have had is still a question in scholarly dispute. Without symbolic authority in the Orient, all the Western churches received this creed from Rome.” (p. 61).

An anonymous commentator (perhaps Ploughman) says the following; “Professor and Church historian Walker reviles the true origin and purpose of Mat 28:19, the spurious Catholic text of Mat 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Mat 28:19, it is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! Therefore, Mat 28:19 is not the ‘Great Commission of Jesus Christ.’ Mat 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Cor 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Mat 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Syr. Sinaiticus, Syr. Curetonianus and Bobiensis?”

ISBE - shoddy scholarship exposed by Tim Hegg
 

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume 4
edited by James Orr
https://books.google.com/books?id=Tn...YAAJ&pg=PA2637

This quote-snippet is taken from an article by John Chisholm Lambert (1857-1917), and is in about 200 parrot sites of the Matthew 28:19 contras. And it was shown to be unscholarly long ago, back in 2006 in the paper by Tim Hegg.

Amazing.

So we see how hopeless is the shoddy scholarship that comes from the contra Matthew 28:19 partisans. Corrections are simply ignored. Scholarly accuracy is not their concern.

anonymous commentator mangling Williston Walker
 

Another scholarship disaster.

The anonymous commentary is worthless. And there is nothing surprising that the end of a book (not just Matthew 28:19) is lacuna in ancient mss.

And the "Yeshua/Jesus" comment makes it look like it was made (or changed) in recent years, which should leave out Ploughman. Randall Duane Hughes has some 1962 material from Ploughman:
http://www.godglorified.com/collection_of_evidence.htm

What about Professor Walker?

Williston Walker (1860-1922)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williston_Walker

So the commentator deceived about Walker. There is nothing reviling the Matthew 28:19 verse.

And if you think it might be another Walker, see this contra page which purports to gives quote from the 1953 edition of his book:
http://www.biblicaltruths.com/has-th...tain-doctrine/

Perhaps this writer is confusing somebodies commentary with the actual book of Walker.

======================
Walker's words would be expected to be identical to 1918, he passed in 1922. David Bernard used his 1947 edition in his bibliography, without any quotes and deceptions.

Next step will be to try to get a copy of the 1953 edition, or perhaps 1847. (There are a number of later editions.)

Abebooks shows a 1950 edition, that might be a good try.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Boo...-srp5-_-title5

When it comes to the quote-snippet secondary and tertiary and quaternary quoting and misquoting:

None dare call this scholarship!

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

Let us assume for a moment it is spurious. What other verse in Matt's gospel would one use to promote the deity of Christ other than Matt 1:23? It would seem his deity would be REVEALED by the majority version as it has been to many over the years.

islamists use fake news scholarship arguments
 

Walker de facto supports authenticity on both p. 95 (above) and p. 61 where he first says that the Apostle's Creed developed out of an explication of Matthew 28:19.

It is totally false "scholarship" to try to marshall Williston Walker, a respected church historian, for arguments against authenticity. When this is simply the opposite position than his writings.

This goes way back, at least to the writing of Clinton Willis, which has had this section online since at least 2005 (2009 in archive.org, however a forum gives this reference from his website in 2005.)

Beyond all that, a trinitarian writer, it looks like David Wood, in 2014, who saw the islamists using this Matthew 28:19 corruption argument for their purposes, has specifically pointed out that this "scholarship" reference is bogus.
The false position trumpted by a number of oneness writers is used as strong ammunition by the islamists to claim that the Bible is corrupt and has been altered and is not accurate and can not be trusted..

And for this purpose they will quote the shoddy scholarship references.

The oneness writers are very wrong, the islamists are very wrong.
The truth is our pure Reformation Bible, and in the majestic Authorized Version.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Clinton Willis on Williston Walker
 

Here is a quick summary of the tricks of the Clinton Willis page, the section on Williston Walker. He has three paragraphs.

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

In the first one he adds his comments right in the quote, drastically changing the meaning:
(but not the original)
(*or interpolated)

Williston Walker does not say anything even remotely like those two phrases. Not even a hint. It is simply fantasy writing by Clinton Willis.

(He also has the quotes marks messed up, ending with 3.)

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

The second paragraph has nothing at all to do with what was written by Williston Walker. It is just polemic, worthless, that should not be in that section.

It starts:
"On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19."

Maybe "reviles" is a 15-year misprint for "reveals". The rest is worthless polemic, and it could be from Clinton Willis, or he could be quoting an unknown source.

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

The third paragraph has two more comments by Willis put inside the quote:
(Catholic)
(man-made non-inspired spurious)

This is a distraction, especially since the main context is the Apostle's Creed, which is usually sensible for apostolics. Here is how it is given in one spot.

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

FZ further mangles the deceptive secondary source
 

Clinton Willis has mangled the basics. Although two quotes were accurate, if you remove his (comments that look like part of the quote). However he sticks anonymous commentary between the two quotes, to pretend that they have some relationship to the Williston Walker material.

FZ then uses the mangled material and makes it into complete scholarly gibberish. As if we care about an anonymous source who writes total nonsense. Yet still keeping Williston Walker involved, as part of the charade.

Why does FZ not at least look for the primary source?

In this case the Williston Walker book, right online, full text.

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

You do understand that there are many scholars who believe that Revelation and 2 Thessalonians don't belong in the New Testament. But, what they can't refute is the physical evidence.

I asked you to produce the answers for the inability of translating key scriptures from Matthew from Greek into Hebrew/Aramaic. Was I mocking you? I thought I was being pretty gentle with my post. Yet, you continued to ignore. If Matthew was originally a Hebrew Only manuscript translated into Greek. I can't see it. Please show me and also with what you don't know, can that be a factor in your decision making?

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

Willis is guilty of bad research. He didnt originate these quotes

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

I have not yet begun to post material on the Shem Tob and other Hebrew material. I am leaving that for later.

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

I communicated with Dr. Willis and he was a noble gentleman, full of the holy spirit of God. He would never intentionally originate false quotes.

Maybe he was simply guilty of bad research, but never of bad intentions.
I respect the man a lot and I view any attacks on him as "Willis’ deception" as character assassination of a godly man.

I would expect respect for such an honorable man of God who has given his life for the gospel, but perhaps that is asking too much of some people

But of course if evil people dare to speak evil of Jesus then what can we expect they will say of us.
CEV "If people call the head of the family Satan, what will they say about the rest of the family?"

bad research, shoddy scholarship, and deception
 

Here is what Tim Hegg wrote in 2006:

Tim Hegg gives examples.

e.g. You can go to the quote on the Clinton Willis site from the ISBE, claiming the words are "foreign to the mouth of Jesus".

A Collection of Evidence Against the
Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19.
https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

Yet, the ISBE was actually opposing the Harnack position, which is in his History of Dogma, with the phrase from the ISBE: "rest upon anti-supernatural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue".

Clinton Willis never corrected the quote, the problem is the same today as in 2006. If a godly man puts up a deceptive quote, he is taking ownership of the deception. The problem is magnified if he refuses to make proper corrections.

In this matter, FZ is actually the one guilty of a false accusation of "character assassination", since Tim Hegg did a superb job in carefully highlighting scholarship difficulties and deceptions.

And, not surprisingly, once a deceptive and doctored quote hits the internet, it is quotes by others. This very same problem showed up here in 2014, with jfrog giving an excellent correction.

.

bad research and good intentions?
 

Probably true in some or all cases. Although in some cases he may have made effort to get the "quote" right, yet even then problems came with things like quote-snipping, (commentary interpolations), context, etc. And by the veneer of scholarship, he influenced 100 and more other sites, books, etc.

btw, his "Dr." is from a G. Reckart (Cohen Gary Reckart) light-weight mail-order institution in Tampa, where you can get a "Life Experience Doctorate Degree". And in such cases I would never use the word "Dr.". This is a big problem in Christian circles, many of the King James Bible Baptist supporters love to find a way to stick "Dr." in front of their names. James White did this as well. Michael Brown, for all his doctrinal issues, at least has a very real doctorate from NYU, and if you want to call him Dr., that is fine.

And there is a huge problem with quoting secondary and tertiary sources without attribution.

And if that was done in ignorance, not realizing the problem, the writer should be diligently attempting to check the primary source. And making all the proper tweaks and corrections. And in these cases, the primary source is often easily available. Clearly, many quotes on Matthew 28:19 will have no salvage value to the contra position, and will simply be deleted (although a correction for earlier use should be given.)

If a quote ends up dangling, anonymous, then it should not be mixed in with real quotes from respected historians or historical works. From a scholarship perspective, that is very off-putting, and somewhere along the transmission line, deception was likely the goal.

Council of Arles
 

Here is a new addition to our list of Ante-Nicene usage supports of the traditional text.

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

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

How about you keep it to one thread instead of spamming the forum with the same material whenever things take a turn you don't like?

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

FZ, Votive makes a great point. You actually have three threads on this one subject. Yet, you aren't any closer to convincing anyone. So, what is the purpose?

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

You are right, I should have stayed with one thread, but I felt the thread had been poisoned by so many negative comments, that I decided to start a fresh thread without all the negative baggage.

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

My purpose is to state this view in the best manner that I can possible do it.
Whether I can convince anyone, well maybe not yet. I have only begun to post my evidence, little by little, because a new idea takes some time to get used to.

Noah did not convinced many people, and neither did Lot, but at least Lot made an attempt to convince his sons in law, he did not succeeded but he still tried.

I am just planting the seed for further reflection by some people. who knows someone might eventually understand what I am trying to teach. it takes time

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

Pick one of your three, and I will lock the other two. And no more new threads.

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

OK, I am going back to the original one.
Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending

There is no point starting a new thread since people who oppose my ideas will simply follow me along to any new thread I create.

Re: Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation
 

Bro, why wouldn’t we? If we didn’t your thread would only be you posting unchallenged. You don’t want that, because you want to be able to prove your position.