The very next sentence gives insight into his unbelief.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”
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.But, furthermore, it is questionable whether Baptism really goes back to Jesus at alL
One irony is that the Gospel of Matthew specifically highlights his type of unbelief.Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (1906)
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).
Here is a bit on his opposition to the historicity of the resurrection.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.
August Tholuck (1799-1877) has a sharp page on Reimarus here:Deconstructing Jesus: Separating Fact from Fiction
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).
Bible Reportory (1828)
History of Theology in the 18th Century
... 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. ...
false attribution to Roberts and Donaldson about Justin Martyr quote
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.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”
The only quote from Roberts and Donaldson is the internal quote which is from Justin Martyr is:
which you can see here on p. 59 of the 1870 edition.“in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”
Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Justin Martyr and Athenagoras (1870)
edited by Alexander Roberts, Sir James Donaldson
Note that one 2008 source from Matthew Shaw shows this distinction properly:
However, Steven D. Ashe, who seems to be one of the major FZ secondary sources, had messed this up:The Olde Landmark: Celebrating our Apsotolic Heritage
Justin Martyr: Father of False 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.
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.What is the original wording of Matthew 28:19?
Steven D. Ashe
“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).”
The quote itself is ambiguous.
And it looks accurate to say that:
Expands on the scripture text of Matthew 28:19:“in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”
However, that is obviously not an argument against the authenticity of Matthew 28:19."in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
The Theological Workbook of the Bible (1873) p. 29 by R. R. (Ronald Ralph) Williams says: "Early baptism was in the name of Christ"
Here the use of secondary and tertiary sources (without attribution) has led to an error of 100 years, the wrong century.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."