Oldest Translation in Logos?

Page 2 of 3 (45 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 44 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 312
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Nov 10 2019 11:40 PM

Hamilton—I baptize in Jesus’ Name & wholeheartedly defend that position as soteriological.  Matthew 28.19 does absolutely zero damage to said doctrine.  I also am quite familiar w. the ebb and flow of the arguments that you have asserted above.

Simply, the arguments from Eusebius have been demonstrated to be based upon a misreading of his intentions and the context of his assertions.  I have discussed this issue w. Dan Wallace, et al.—and as he points out each time we discuss this topic, these arguments against Matthew 28.19 have been solidly debunked by text critics long ago.

So, while I agree that genuine scholarship goes where the evidence leads (which is precisely the reason I baptize according to Acts 2.38)—the textual “evidence” supports Matthew 28.19 ( as MJ’s posts reflect).

I simply am not willing to exchange what solid textual evidence we *DO* have for textual hypotheses that we do *NOT* have.  Appreciate your input and will look into the reference you have posted.

Posts 10324
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 11 2019 5:36 AM

Puddin’:
these arguments against Matthew 28.19 have been solidly debunked by text critics long ago.

I hope he didn't say that, though I wouldn't be surprised. Arguments began early on, long before modern pseudo-confidence (I guess post-religion is the new phrase). 'Doesn't know, but thinks that ...." is the best he can do.


Posts 713
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 11 2019 7:25 AM

Glad to hear that you have looked into this Puddin.

The correct formula is Jesus Christ, not Jesus alone.

My concern is that there can be no contradictions in the Bible, and no one was baptized as per Mathew 28:19 long formula.

The Net notes has more input on this.

Look at the following: (posted by a Christian Chat poster)

Read the last paragraph.

Up to certain time all was done IAW Acts 2:38 and Hebrew Matthew, all of a sudden the formula was changed and no explanation given.

There may be noble intentions (defending against Arianism), but adopted people of God had to do such in an ethical manner. That is God's way that for us is the only way.

Blessings.

Posts 312
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 11 2019 11:37 PM

Hamilton - yes, I baptize in the name of Jesus Christ as per Acts 2.38 (although 8.16, 19.5 include the “Lord” Jesus—which is a very important title when viewed w. the LXX background).  I have written extensive rejoinders on this topic on my blog as well as official papers, so I am familiar w. the formulaic issues.

However, I am not convinced that the traditional reading of Matthew 28.19 is a post fourth century invention.  MJ has already posted some very good points supporting the early viability of this passage.  Indeed, in NO critical apparatus that I am aware of (e.g., UBS-5, Tyndale GNT, NA28) is there a variant listed for the prepositional phrase εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.

Of course, the next step is to identify τὸ ὄνομα (the Name)—and then obey this command.  But, honestly, I think we’re veering off into theology, when all I am looking for is early translations (e.g. Syriac, Coptic, etc.).  Though I am ANYTHING but a KJVO—still, this site has some good info. on Matthew 28.19:  http://purebibleforum.com/index.php?forums/matthew-28-19-authenticity.133/

I sincerely hope no one takes this as an endorsement of this above linked site altogether.  The host owner of the forum and myself have had wars over KJVO—and I am floored by the inane arguments offered sometimes (e.g., Siniaticus is a “forgery” 🙄, etc.).  But, the relevant portion on Matthew 28.19 offers some good quotes.   

Posts 312
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 11 2019 11:42 PM

Denise:

Puddin’:
these arguments against Matthew 28.19 have been solidly debunked by text critics long ago.

I hope he didn't say that, though I wouldn't be surprised. Arguments began early on, long before modern pseudo-confidence (I guess post-religion is the new phrase). 'Doesn't know, but thinks that ...." is the best he can do.

I realize this Denise, and, honestly, Dr. Wallace would likely concede the point.

Posts 27039
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 12 2019 1:18 AM

Hamilton Ramos:

Look at the following: (posted by a Christian Chat poster)

Read the last paragraph.

FYI - this is an unofficial document by someone I've never heard of. 

However, if you all are adamant that you need to argue theology in the forums, I suggest that you turn to identifying the resources that really allow you to sort it out e.g.

Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit: evidence of the first eight centuries by Kilian McDonnell OSBGeorge Montague SM which argues based on the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew paralleling Matthew's trinitarian forumula. Yes, it then traces the post-resurrection baptisms with special attention to the sequence of water baptism/baptism of the Spirit.There is a reason my library has many volumes from Michael Glazier.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 312
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 12 2019 2:36 AM

MJ—Thank you for the link.  Looks like an interesting read.  Though I realize we’re already pushing the limits concerning theological discussion let me just briefly state that I equally have a lot of works on the biblical new birth experience replete w. early quotes, etc.  In fact, I reference several on my blog.  I just downloaded a complete tome last week on this very topic, and if the data is correct, all I can say WOW!  

My point is that I think we can all marshal resources that would support our particular dogmas.  Further, as you likely already know after looking on my blog (😉) I don’t view Matthew 28.19 as a “Trinitarian formula,” but, again, I’m still a relative new comer to these forums and don’t want to push my luck.  However, I do intend to acquire the work you have suggested above inasmuch as I do take your (& Denise’s) research seriously.  

Posts 713
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 12 2019 2:50 AM

Puddin’:
I think we’re veering off into theology, when all I am looking for is early translations

Agree.

Thanks for the info Pudding.

Posts 713
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 12 2019 2:58 AM

I understand what you are saying MJ, and no I am not here to discuss theology.

There is supposedly external evidence that the Caths have about the early baptism happening in the name of Jesus Christ, and is supposedly very official, you may want to research into that and kindly share with us your findings.

Thanks for the info, and I hope you understand people has the God given right to inquire into things and check if things are so. That is an undelegable responsibility each individual has.

I was pointing to Pudding that as he has done, we come to the best conjecture possible given the scant evidence we have available.

Many resources in L8 aid in the investigation, I guess that the path to truth is full of stumbling due to our limited contextual situation, but I see no problem with advancing and continue to use L8 in our quest.

Kind regards.

Posts 10324
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 12 2019 5:37 AM

Hamilton Ramos:
I understand what you are saying MJ, and no I am not here to discuss theology.

Not likely, on either count?


Posts 713
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 12 2019 8:10 AM

Not sure what you mean Denise.

The way I look at this: MJ is in a privileged position to be able to access key evidence on a very important topic. If she can from official records tell when the change of baptism formula in the Church happened, she could easily narrow down the time of a possible problem so that better study on why such happened could ensue.

That in itself is beyond theology, is good Orthopraxis in benefit of the many seekers of truth that would like to understand what has happened historically.

MJ says that the image is of an unofficial publication. I did not know that that was possible under the C. system. 

I am pretty sure that there are resources that touch upon all this, but without key terms / concepts to search for them, it would be difficult to find them.

Posts 27039
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 12 2019 2:08 PM

Hamilton Ramos:
There is supposedly external evidence that the Caths have about the early baptism happening in the name of Jesus Christ, and is supposedly very official, you may want to research into that and kindly share with us your findings.

Yes, there is very good scholarship that shows that the early church had a variety of practices in a variety of locations depending upon circumstances. Each practice had its own internal logic and its own Biblical roots. Most of the information comes from liturgical rather than Biblical scholars. But if one wishes to actual learn something worth learning it is important to use sources that you can verify i.e. not only can you check on the how people you respect view the author but also that gives their sources so that you can check they have used the data correctly. Recently I was reading a multi-view resource available on Logos in which one of the authors deliberately misquoted a common early church fathers' saying to make it fit his theology - the other two authors fortunately called him on it. I will never trust anything written by the first author.. . and likely be leery of anyone from his seminary.

My point is simple. You write clearly theological statements such as:

Hamilton Ramos:

The correct formula is Jesus Christ, not Jesus alone.

My concern is that there can be no contradictions in the Bible, and no one was baptized as per Mathew 28:19 long formula.. . .

Up to certain time all was done IAW Acts 2:38 and Hebrew Matthew, all of a sudden the formula was changed and no explanation given.

and then quote a resource seemingly thinking it has more force than is appropriate. I naturally want to offer other users a solid history of the matter and select the one that spent the most time on the Biblical evidence as that is the most appropriate for this audience. I have every reason to believe that the forum users as a whole have little knowledge of the wealth of liturgical history resources produced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox. Most of it is non-denominational i.e. history simply is what it is. It is then up to the individual forum user to decide whether or not they are interested in learning this particular topic.

Hamilton Ramos:

MJ says that the image is of an unofficial publication. I did not know that that was possible under the C. system. 

While I can't imagine where you got such a misunderstanding. 

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 27039
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 12 2019 2:49 PM

Hamilton Ramos:
That in itself is beyond theology, is good Orthopraxis in benefit of the many seekers of truth that would like to understand what has happened historically.

What you are speaking of is liturgical theology (not to be confused with theology of liturgy, a separate field, or liturgics). The best known introduction to liturgical theology is by Alexander Schmemann - see the first entry in Works of Alexander Dmitrievich Schmemann, a recent forum post. Kevin Irwin, Aidan Kavanagh and Gordon Lathrop  are other widely known names.

Hamilton Ramos:
If she can from official records tell when the change of baptism formula in the Church happened, she could easily narrow down the time of a possible problem so that better study on why such happened could ensue.

Is this a trick question? First, the issue should include all available direct evidence not just official documents. Second, the question assumes a change that has not been substantiated. The question that can be answered is when did the baptismal formula become standardized? I could then be a smarty pants and refer to an incident in Boston a couple of decades back ... Or I could be serious and direct you to read the Didache where the Trinitarian formula is given but it also provides evidence of the Jesus name only formula. But I would also have to say that I've spent very little time studying the support for Pentecostal positions.

Do I get to ask a question, too?

  • do a study on the use of "in the name of" both Biblically and culturally
  • now, prove that the references in Acts and the epistles to "in the name of Jesus" are baptismal formulas

I think that is where any study of the matter should start ... careful exegesis focused on the unspoken assumption that causes different interpretations. And no, I hold no particular position on what the results of the second step would be but I find it an interesting question.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 312
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 12 2019 11:59 PM

MJ—regarding your 2 questions regarding a study on the usage of the prepositional phrase “in the name of,” I would point you to Wilhelm Heitmuller’s mammoth work:  Im Namen Jesu: eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe("In the name of Jesus: a language and religious historical inquiry into the New Testament, particularly in regards to Christian baptism"), 1903.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Heitm%C3%BCller

BAGD & BDAG based their lexical conclusions on Heitmuller’s work (which see).  Heitmuller researched this prepositional phrase as used in the LXX, Midrash, Papyri, GNT, etc.  His conclusion?  The name of Jesus Christ was the oral formula of the infant church in baptism.  

BDAG, et al. do indeed designate this prepositional phrase as a “formula” based upon papyri, NT usage in cf. w. the laws of Greek prepositions, the permissive middle voice of the participles in Acts 22.16 (cf. Robertson, Large Grammar, Dana & Mantey, F.F. Bruce, Wallace, etc.).  I have tons of documentation on this topic (some is on my blog).  Just wanted to post the sources you asked for since many people aren’t aware of Heitmuller’s work.  A friend of mine actually paid an enormous price to have Heitmuller’s work translated into English from German.  Would love to have on Logos.

Posts 27039
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 13 2019 1:50 AM

Thanks for the information ... it is well worth following up on. IIRC it was in Orthodox resources that I've seen the argument that it is not a baptismal formula but my memory is far too fuzzy to come up with the line of argument they pursued. All I tucked away in memory is that it was sufficiently interesting as to deserve further research.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2423
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 13 2019 4:55 AM

Hamilton Ramos:

My concern is that there can be no contradictions in the Bible, and no one was baptized as per Mathew 28:19 long formula.

Question: Would it be more exact to state that no one in recorded scripture was recorded as being baptized as per Mathew 28:19 long formula?

[[I have not been able to find the baptismal records of the 3000 baptized nor the method used as recorded in Acts 2:41.]]

[[IF [and I did say IF] that formula was in common use and understood to be the correct way of doing baptizing would the writers note that it was said each and every time a baptism was done or just assume that it was said and only note that the baptism was done?]]

Posts 10324
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 13 2019 6:46 AM

Puddin’:
BAGD & BDAG based their lexical conclusions on Heitmuller’s work (which see).  Heitmuller researched this prepositional phrase as used in the LXX, Midrash, Papyri, GNT, etc.  His conclusion?  The name of Jesus Christ was the oral formula of the infant church in baptism.  

Puddin, I personally don't get too excited about early practice. Obviously, it was so important, they forgot to mention it for a century or so (granted Didache, but who/where was that?).

But 'name of' is so heavy in usage both jewish and non-jewish across time and geography, that a scholar would have to be there, to know. For me (ha), it's the proof-text, Paul was clearly not on board with Antioch and Jerusalem. 


Posts 713
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 13 2019 1:52 PM

Thank you MJ for very informative and constructive input. 

Remember I am not a trained expert like most in the Forums.

What in my experience in secular realms has been, is that at some particular time, because of a. very contextual situation a change in a policy, regulation, etc. happens to meet a very particular need.

Time passes, contextual situation changes, and no one really challenges the changed rule, regulation, etc. "It has always been done like that" not really understanding that the exception was to a particular situation that maybe does not apply now.

So that parallel to me is: maybe the Church had a particular situation that granted switching to the long baptismal formula from the short one (battling Arianism, or other cause), now that most of Christians know Arianism is not the way to go, maybe we should go back to the original Acts 2:38 way.

Even though some think that I write theological stuff to polemicize, note how so many good angles have come up:

Was it just coincidence that the short formula events were the ones recorded in the Bible, does that mean that maybe is not a binding rule? etc.

Good questions to consider. 

My answer is always ST: the whole counsel of God.

Why would Jesus warn ahead of time so much about a name?

Mat 24:9, Mark 13:13, John 15:20 - 21.

So it seems to me that is a big deal on what name we submit to, baptize under, etc.

I wonder If there is a resource that tells the story of why and when the baptismal formula was changed. That way we could orient better further research on the topic.

Posts 713
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 13 2019 2:01 PM

Very interesting Pudding.

Do you know if "Im Namen Jesu: eine sprach-..." is translated to English or Spanish?

This topic is very dear to me, the way I see it, we are saved by God. He sent Jesus to die for us and to baptize us with the Holy Spirit (to restore Koinonia with God that was lost after the fall).

But in order to make good on the whole plan, there are God given prerequisites for entering the New Covenant.

Peter has the keys (that give access), and he pronounced the key to the New Covenant in my view in Acts 2:38.

Without Jesus sacrifice there would be no salvation regardless of any ritual, confirmation, belief, etc.

But God did set prerequisites for the New Covenant:

Understand the message, repent, restitute, confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, baptize as per Acts 2:38, be baptized with the Holy Spirit, walk humbly with your God doing as He requires of you, engage in the overall effort to look for the lost.

So for OT they had certain requirements circumcision, Sabbath, dietary laws, that denoted them as the chosen ones in the pact, so there are requirements for NT, and are not works, but set requirements from God Himself.

Posts 713
Hamilton Ramos | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 13 2019 2:21 PM

Hi David:

Remember I am not an expert, just a believing sheep.

As mentioned in other post. By looking at the whole counsel of God, I see potential problems.

Just as the set apart people of God had circumcision, dietary laws, etc. that denoted they were of a special flock, persons in the New Covenant most probably will have some other markers.

One of them is the baptize in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Is funny if you compare how the markers of the chosen people are usually used to identify them and persecute them. 

If some king wanted to tell if a guy was Jew would just probably look down under.

So the Bible is clear that for New Covenant set apart members, there will be persecution due to a name:

Why would Jesus warn ahead of time so much about a name?

Mat 24:9, Mark 13:13, John 15: 20 - 21.

So it seems to me that is a big deal on what name we submit to, baptize under, etc.

I explained this in other threads:

Imagine inmates in death row. Through a king, a royal pardon is granted to them. They did nothing to deserve it, the good king out of his merciful heart spared their life.

Now imagine that king issuing further instructions: Ok I pardoned you life, so now I want you to shower, shine, shave, change clothes, and meet me in the front door because you will start a new life with me.

So let's analyze the possible scenarios:

1 the persons do not shower, change, shave, etc. but do show up. They will offend the king, not sure what his reaction will be but will send them to tidy up before taking them to the kingdom. 

2 they do shower, change, etc.but go to the side door. They will probably miss the royal chariot to go to the appointed place.

3 they do shower, raise and shine, and go to the appointed door for the rendezvous.

Now we note:

If the inmates had not receive royal pardon, they can change, shine, shave, go to any door, and they will still be appointed to die. So doing the kings instructions without pardon is no good. Same with us, if Jesus had not died for us, we could baptize, learn creeds and confessions by memory, etc. to no use.

When people accept the work of Jesus for us, but do not do what they are supposed for the rendezvous with the king as in 2 above, then the possible outcome, is that they will have to go through the tribulation to clean their garments.

But those that have accepted the royal pardon, have changed the old man clothes and put on the Holy Spirit new clothes, tidy up and go with good attitude in hope of a new life, and meet at the designated place, then those will be taken to the kingdom. These are compared to the watchful and full of oil (symbol of the Holy Spirit) wise virgins in the parable, that meet the royal messenger and go to the supper of the marriage of the Lamb. (rapture) who are spared from tribulation and that come then with Jesus Christ to rescue the foolish virgins that do go trough the tribulation.

So yes, obeying and complying with the God prescribed requirements is important and may have very real consequences.

Page 2 of 3 (45 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS