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

Date of John's gospel (was: "BD 20:2-10")

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Billy, I can only say that many profs. consider the FG to be late . It is a sad fact of NT study that, whichever way you look at it, many professors must
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 30, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Billy Evans wrote:

      >I have always accepted an early date for the FG as all my profs have .....

      Billy,
      I can only say that many profs. consider the FG to be "late". It is a
      sad fact of NT study that, whichever way you look at it, many professors
      must be wrong.

      > An interesting question to those who presupose the
      >historical reliability of Jesus and the FG follows

      I'm not sure what you mean here. In general I don't even support it,
      let alone "presuppose" it.

      > how can you speak with such confidence about your theories of the FG ...?

      Occasionally I make an apparently confident statement in order to
      provoke a reaction - to find out whether there are any serious
      objections to a hypothesis. But mostly my apparent confidence is real.
      It derives from decades of curiosity and openness (it doesn't matter to
      me what I find to be fact or fiction), coupled with, by now, a fairly
      clear picture of how the NT evidence fits together and against its
      background ("Sitz im Leben").

      > ..... and the non-Jesus?

      Here again you've lost me. Are you referring to Ellegard's views? I
      was critical of these.

      > I'd rather hear that the propounding of the BD
      >by the evangelist to be cryptic prophecy for Paul

      Prophecy? When do you think John was written?

      Ron Price

      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

      e-mail: ron.price@...

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.