Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:33:26 -0500 (EST) From: William Arnal To: "Stephen C. Carlson" cc: crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Subject: (in)dependance: John & Thomas In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19961127160913.2907a5a8@pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-crosstalk@info.harpercollins.com Precedence: bulk I don't see a close analogy between these two questions, at least not one close enough to require that one answer both questions the same way. John is a narrative gospel, and shares a common form with Mark, as well as considerable common content. Moreover, with John, we have a decent textual tradition. In the bare handful of instances in which Thomas clearly reproduces canonical redaction, it seems reasonable -- at least in the absence of any consistent pattern -- to attribute this to scribal assimilation. A deus ex machina, certainly, but still reasonable in light of what we know about the textual transmission of this material. Similar appeals can't be made quite the same way with John: our MSS evidence is decent enough that such instances should disappear with a critical reconstruction of the text. They don't. Bill _____________________________________ William E. Arnal Centre for the Study of Religion University of Toronto 123 St. George Street warnal@chass.utoronto.ca Toronto, Ontario M5S 2E8 (416) 761-9151