Date of John's gospel (was: "BD 20:2-10")
- 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 theI'm not sure what you mean here. In general I don't even support it,
>historical reliability of Jesus and the FG follows
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 BDProphecy? When do you think John was written?
>by the evangelist to be cryptic prophecy for Paul
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm