06-13-2005, 08:34 AM
That particular section has been debated over the years simply because it doesn't fit there when you read through it a couple of times. Also, it doesn't agree with what the first century Christians were doing, such as doing all things in the name of The Lord Jesus. You don't find the trinitarian formula in the epistles, they just use the authority of Jesus.
It is one of the areas that most likely was designed to agree with church doctrine. It along with Mark's ending section.
I think there is a greek manuscript that has that section removed also. Shem-tob's is touchy, it has a lot of denial of Christ in many sections so it is not a full-fledged trustworthy copy. The text of Munsters and Dutillet are more reliable is you do some comparisons. They also agree more with the latin and greek.
A little known secret, the additional name for the matthew gospel in the DuTillet manuscript is also listed in a polemic treatise from the middle ages. Funny how the name is quoted along with a latin translation underneath it,.....things that make you go hmmm.
I'm quite sure that even is Mr. Trimm would have seen the name listed there in the book, he would have never said anything about it anyways. The last thing he needs is possible proof that his cherished hebrew matthew may have came from an old latin original, as some have speculated.
But, the extra name is most likely valid, if it is showing up here in a couple of things. It is easier to associate the possibility of someone finding the lost name than trying to re-write a doctrine on a genealogy. I know that does not go over well here with this crowd, but not all of us are sold over on the primacy issue, wether it be greek or syriac.
It is one of the areas that most likely was designed to agree with church doctrine. It along with Mark's ending section.
I think there is a greek manuscript that has that section removed also. Shem-tob's is touchy, it has a lot of denial of Christ in many sections so it is not a full-fledged trustworthy copy. The text of Munsters and Dutillet are more reliable is you do some comparisons. They also agree more with the latin and greek.
A little known secret, the additional name for the matthew gospel in the DuTillet manuscript is also listed in a polemic treatise from the middle ages. Funny how the name is quoted along with a latin translation underneath it,.....things that make you go hmmm.
I'm quite sure that even is Mr. Trimm would have seen the name listed there in the book, he would have never said anything about it anyways. The last thing he needs is possible proof that his cherished hebrew matthew may have came from an old latin original, as some have speculated.
But, the extra name is most likely valid, if it is showing up here in a couple of things. It is easier to associate the possibility of someone finding the lost name than trying to re-write a doctrine on a genealogy. I know that does not go over well here with this crowd, but not all of us are sold over on the primacy issue, wether it be greek or syriac.