Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GTh] Mathean Redaction in Thomas

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    ... From: Tom Saunders To: Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 7:01 PM Subject: [GTh] Mathean Redaction in Thomas
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 18, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Tom Saunders" <tom@...>
      To: <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 7:01 PM
      Subject: [GTh] Mathean Redaction in Thomas


      > Andrew says:
      >
      > References to destruction are frequent in Matthew the absence here
      > suggests that Matthew was not using a source containing 'destroyed'.
      >
      > Because destroyed is at least implied here, by the act of up-rooting,
      could this be a matter of scribal error or omission, because destroyed is
      implied by the act itself?
      >
      > Tom Saunders
      > Platter Flats, OK
      >
      >
      Entirely possible. I'm not saying the difference proves anything.
      However if I had 2 manuscript of Matthew or 2 manuscripts
      of Thomas one with 'root up and destroy' and one with just
      'root up' I would think it very likely that the shorter version
      was the original and the longer a later expansion.

      Andrew Criddle
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.