Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Matthew 28:19 - contras use shoddy scholarship, 'criminal 'citation techniques, plagiarism, unreferenced secondary sources

  1. Default Matthew 28:19 - contras use shoddy scholarship, 'criminal 'citation techniques, plagiarism, unreferenced secondary sources

    This is covered to an extent by Tim Hegg in a fine paper:

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

    Also a post by JFrog a while back (see pages 2 and 3)
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...4&postcount=11 post 11
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...9&postcount=26 post 26 (also 21 and 25)
    Oneness' Pentecostal Hall of Shame
    http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/baptism.html#God

    The Catholic Encyclopedia is an example where the author shows the shoddy scholarship, along with other points iike using unbelievers and mythicists.

    And I give many examples on the recent thread on Apostolic Friends Forum.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; Yesterday at 07:53 AM.

  2. Default Tim Hegg dissects scholarly disaster

    Apostolic Friends Forum
    Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=271

    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:

    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:

    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; 02-23-2019 at 01:59 PM.

  3. Default

    Here are the AFF threads.

    Was Matt.28:19 Tampered With ? (2010) 31 pages
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=895696

    Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Baptism (2013) 11 pages
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=43049

    Is Matt. 28:19 Jesus Words? (2013-14) 18 pages
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=45082

    Catholics ADMIT to illegally changing... (2014) 4 pages
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=46038

    Scholars find Matt.28:19 to be fraudulent. (2014-2016) 8 pages
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=46039

    The Original Matthew 28:19 Restored (2015-2018) 30 pages
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=48024


    Gospels of Matthew without Trinitarian ending (2018-2019)
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=52712

    The traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation.
    http:/http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=53166

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

    Minor

    Change After Water Baptism?
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ack#post740882

    Acts 2:38 DESTROYED??? (Defending the Trinty)
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com....php?p=1008361
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 03-19-2019 at 04:56 AM.

  4. Default one section from Tim Hegg - irresponsible misinformation and malicious deception

    AFF
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=53231

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
    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.”
    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 contra parrot sites. And it was shown to be unscholarly back in 2006 in the paper by Tim Hegg.

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

    ... Willis also offers the following quote from ISBE, mistakenly said to be from the article on “Baptism” when it is, in fact, extracted from the article on “Sacraments.”
    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 (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.7

    Here is the quote in its fuller context:
    (1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mk 16:15 f occurs in a passage (16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mt 28:19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mt 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 Jesus5' (see Hamack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supematural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Acts 2:38,41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (compare Rom 6:3 ff; 1 Cor 12:13: Eph 4:5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle's earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.8 (emphasis mine)

    Willis’ deception in misquoting sources in order to make them say precisely the opposite of what the authors intended is nothing short of reprehensible,9 but unfortunately it represents the misinformation all too often encountered on the internet.10

    9.A number of other similar deceptions are part of Willis’ internet page on Matt 28:19, but the few listed here should give the reader sufficient pause in relying upon anything this author presents.

    10.One need only search the internet for “Matthew 28:19” to see the manner in which irresponsible misinformation and malicious deception has been multiplied upon unsuspecting readers. Such a state of affairs should strengthen our resolve to accept conclusions only when we have verified the sources.
    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.

    irresponsible misinformation and malicious deception

  5. Default

    Next post
    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
    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?”
    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

    A History of the Christian Church (1918)
    Williston Walker
    https://books.google.com/books?id=U_QbAAAAMAAJ

    Discussion here:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=U_QbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA95

    With the early disciples generality baptism was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” 4 There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matt. 2819. That text is early, however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded in the Teaching,5 and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).7
    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.

    ======================
    Clinton Willis has dubious quotes that he attributes to Walker from the 1953 edition

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

    Remember, Willis is shown by Tim Hegg to use references that are far from scholarly. This whole situation is a sad reflection on "Oneness" scholarship on this issue. Thus one writer set up a "Oneness Pentecostal Hall of Shame", focused around the attack on Matthew 28:19.

    As for Clinton Willis, his LinkedIn page says his "Dr." comes from:

    Apostolic Theological Bible College, United Apostolic Theological Seminary
    Doctorate of Theology, Ph.D. in Theological and Religious Studies, MA in Church
    History, Theology/Theological Studies.
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-clinton-willis-38aa4868/
    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
    What about Professor Walker?
    Walker de facto supports authenticity on both p. 95 (above) and p. 61 where he says that the Apostle's Creed developed out of an explication of Matthew 28:19.

    A History of the Christian Church (1918)
    Williston Walker
    https://books.google.com/books?id=U_QbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA61

    Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century.5 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.
    Note the p. 61 and p. 95. These are the pages used by Clinton Willis when he mangles Williston Walker.

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

    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.
    Heretics United: A Defense of the Textual Integrity and Trinitarian Interpretation of Matthew 28:19 -- Part 1b
    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014...f-textual.html

    For another example, a number of the articles linked above also have this statement, which supposedly gives us the view of Williston Walker from his A History of the Christian Church:

    1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. “With the early disciples generally baptism was ‘in the name of Jesus 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 Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).”
    The critical phrases in parentheses above DO NOT appear in Walker’s text and no indication is given anywhere in the article that material found in parentheses are not those of the author being quoted, thus giving out a false impression. Here is the unadulterated text of Walker:

    With the early disciples generally baptism was “in the name of Jesus 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 Matt. 2819. That text IS early, however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded in the Teaching, and by Justin… (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1918), p. 95.) (Bold Emphasis and Capitals are mine)

    The source cited decidedly does not say that Matthew 28:19 is “not original”; neither does it say that the Trinitarian statement was “interpolated” into the Didache.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •