Re: [GTh] Mathean Redaction in Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Saunders" <tom@...>
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.