6234Re: [GTh] Crosstalk Discussions
- Apr 3 9:03 AMHi Gordon et al.:
>Good to hear from you! So you survived the winter freeze:)!And it was a BAD winter this year, for any number of reasons.
>s April'sThe answer to both questions is, probably not. I am not aware of April's
>work available online? Can you easily send me your "rigorous work?"
article being on-line, nor my own. I know that sometime within the last
couple years, someone had wanted to post my HTR piece on their website, so I
wrote to HTR about the copyright, and never got a response. I forget who
wanted to do this, and don't know whether they went ahead with it anyway. I
>To another matter, I'd like to hear your thoughts about the date and sitzWell, since I'm no longer convinced I was right, it's hard to say. But yes,
>early Thomas. Do you conceive it, like you conceive Q1, "very early" (as
>from you "Jesus and the Village Scribes" work)?
my inclination was to regard the foundational layer as quite early. And I am
STILL inclined to date the complete Thomas, i.e., Thomas as we more or less
have it, as very early -- i.e., 40s to 60s or thereabouts. I have yet to be
convinced by any of the arguments placing Thomas late-ish.
University of Regina
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>