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

[John_Lit] Re: Fortna reviews Van Belle "The Signs Source..."

Expand Messages
  • Paul Anderson
    Thank you, Weiland, for including Fortna s review of van Belle s work. It is spirited, but one should still look at it personally, as well as Fortna s work,
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you, Weiland, for including Fortna's review of van Belle's work. It
      is spirited, but one should still look at it personally, as well as
      Fortna's work, in making a judgment.

      My own work evaluates the source theories argued by Bultmann and scholars
      preceding and following him, and it applies all of his evidence
      (stylistic, contextual and theological) to the text of John 6 (where four
      of his five sources should be present). The distribution is absolutely
      non indicative, and I find no evidence that there was any non-johannine
      source upon which John was based.

      Neither do I find evidence of dependence upon Mark compelling at all --
      although I detect an "interfluential" set of relationships with the
      pre-Marcan material.

      You may consider the findings in further detail in chapters 3-7 of _The
      Christology of the Fourth Gospel_ (Trinity Press International, 1997).

      Thanks.

      Paul Anderson
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.