Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Matthew 28:19, the historical contras (from the AFF thread)

  1. Default Matthew 28:19, the historical contras (from the AFF thread)

    This will bring over the info, generally one writer at a time.

  2. Default Hermann Samuel Reimarus

    AFF
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...82&postcount=5

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
    In 1778 in The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples by professor of Hebrew and Oriental languages, Hermann Samuel Reimarus wrote: “In the first place the genuineness of the command to baptize in Matt. xxviii. 19 is questionable, not only as a saying ascribed to the risen Jesus, but also because it is universalistic in outlook, and because it implies the doctrine of the Trinity and, consequently, the metaphysical Divine Sonship of Jesus”
    The very next sentence gives insight into his unbelief.
    But, furthermore, it is questionable whether Baptism really goes back to Jesus at alL
    Reimarus (1694-1768) is important because he was a key figure in the "historical Jesus" movement, and he was a classic infidel. There is a bunch on him on the earlier thread.


    One post by Evang.Benincasa, and one by yours truly.
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...imarus&page=17


    Here is the actual work by Reimarus, and the likely page.


    Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner jünger: Noch ein Fragment des Wolfenbüttelschen ungenannten (1784)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=TeROAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA82
    https://archive.org/details/vondemzw...goog/page/n114


    The Reimarus English quote above is from Albert Schweitzer, and translation is by William Montgomery.


    Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (1906)
    https://books.google.com/books/about...d=1CQVAAAAYAAJ
    https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100435409


    The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress From Reimarus to Wrede (trans. William Montgomery; London: A. and C. Black, 1910).
    http://books.google.com/books?id=7UPLuZZ8NHIC&pg=PA18
    One irony is that the Gospel of Matthew specifically highlights his type of unbelief.


    Matthew 28:11-15
    Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
    Here is a bit on his opposition to the historicity of the resurrection.


    Deconstructing Jesus: Separating Fact from Fiction
    Rollin Grans
    https://www.gordonconwell.edu/blog/7558/2016/7


    Deconstructing the Jesus of faith has been around in Modernist and now Postmodernist forms for some time. Herman Reimarus’s Apology or Defence of the Rational Worshippers of God (1778) argued that Jesus was a pious Jew who called people to repentance and got himself killed in Jerusalem. His disciples then decided to steal His body and claim that He had risen from the dead so that they would not have to go back to work. Secrecy, conspiracy and scandal are not new to studies on Jesus. For those denying Jesus’ resurrection, such theories are standard fare (cf. Mt. 28.11-15).
    August Tholuck (1799-1877) has a sharp page on Reimarus here:


    Bible Reportory (1828)
    History of Theology in the 18th Century
    https://books.google.com/books?id=P1UAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA224
    https://books.google.com/books?id=fMA6AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA596 (1846)


    ... The author says, Christ wishes to establish an earthly kingdom, hut failing in his enterprise made the despairing exclamation on the Cross. Every thing which this author wrote is marked by the most decided spirit of infidelity, which he feared however fully to declare. His arguments therefore are not those of a calm investigator, but of a passionate enemy. He was entirely deficient in the true historical spirit, though in other respects not wanting in talents. ...

  3. Default false attribution to Roberts and Donaldson about Justin Martyr quote

    AFF
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...26#post1559226

    false attribution to Roberts and Donaldson about Justin Martyr quote
    false attribution to Roberts and Donaldson about Justin Martyr quote

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
    Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (1867) by Roberts, Alexander Rev. and James Donaldson. “Justin Martyr expanded the biblical baptismal formula to “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”
    This is another example of how relying on secondary and tertiary sources, and not doing even simple checking, ends up giving us deceptive quotes. The words about "expanded the biblical baptismal formula" are NOT from the learned scholars Roberts and Donaldson, they are words from the deficient modern writers with a bit of an axe to grind.

    The only quote from Roberts and Donaldson is the internal quote which is from Justin Martyr is:

    “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”
    which you can see here on p. 59 of the 1870 edition.

    Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Justin Martyr and Athenagoras (1870)
    edited by Alexander Roberts, Sir James Donaldson
    https://books.google.com/books?id=_wJUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA59

    Note that one 2008 source from Matthew Shaw shows this distinction properly:

    The Olde Landmark: Celebrating our Apsotolic Heritage
    Justin Martyr: Father of False Doctrine
    Matthew Shaw
    https://oldlandmark.wordpress.com/20...alse-doctrine/

    Further corrupting the original Apostolic teaching of the mighty God in Christ, Justin Martyr expanded the biblical baptismal formula to “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit” (qtd. in Roberts and Donaldson 60). This is an obvious innovation and does not follow the traditional Trinitarian invocation of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” but attempts to retain the personal name of Christ, the proper New Testament rubric for Christian baptism, while exploding Justin’s tri-personal Godhead.
    However, Steven D. Ashe, who seems to be one of the major FZ secondary sources, had messed this up:

    What is the original wording of Matthew 28:19?
    Steven D. Ashe
    http://matthew2819-blog.blogspot.com...f-matthew.html

    “Justin Martyr expanded the biblical baptismal formula to “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”, but he retained the Apostolic teaching of baptism for the remission of sins: “[We] may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings” (Roberts and Donaldson 60).”
    It is very easy to find the Roberts and Donaldson editions on Justin Martyr. And if you know their writings, you would know immediately that the attribution does not pass the smell test.

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

    The quote itself is ambiguous.
    And it looks accurate to say that:

    “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”
    Expands on the scripture text of Matthew 28:19:

    "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
    However, that is obviously not an argument against the authenticity of Matthew 28:19.

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

    Steven Avery

  4. Default Ronald Ralph Williams placed in wrong century

    AFF
    http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...9&postcount=22
    Ronald Ralph Williams placed in wrong century

    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
    The Theological Workbook of the Bible (1873) p. 29 by R. R. (Ronald Ralph) Williams says: "Early baptism was in the name of Christ"
    Quote Originally Posted by FlamingZword View Post
    The Theological Workbook of the Bible (1873) p. 29 by R. R. Williams concurs: "The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging of Trinitarianism."
    Here the use of secondary and tertiary sources (without attribution) has led to an error of 100 years, the wrong century.

    Ronald Ralph Williams (1906-1979)


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Williams_(bishop)

    Similarly, the first evidence of "The Theological Workbook of the Bible" is in the 1950s. The book is hard to find, but since the quotes

    For a 1900s scholar, the quotes, if accurate, are rather controversial. Of course, when Jesus spoke the words in Matthew 28:19, they really had nothing to do with "a developed doctrine of Trinitarianism."

Posting Permissions

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