Form and redaction criticism within the framework of gospel research
Vorster's views on form and redaction criticism should be gleaned mainly from his comments within the context of his extensive gospel research. His insistence on methodological soberness is his most abiding bequest to biblical research. At the same time this led him to evaluate these methods in...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
NTWSA
1994
|
| In: |
Neotestamentica
Year: 1994, Volume: 28, Issue: 3, Pages: 33-50 |
| Further subjects: | B
Theology
B Vorster B Bible interpretation criticism B Gospels B Christianity B W.S |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | Vorster's views on form and redaction criticism should be gleaned mainly from his comments within the context of his extensive gospel research. His insistence on methodological soberness is his most abiding bequest to biblical research. At the same time this led him to evaluate these methods in terms of an either-or scheme: either the diachronic or the synchronic approach; either evolution or creativity, etcetera. Vorster consistently chose for the latter against the former. It is argued that it would be more correct to think in complementary terms and to use different approaches to enrich one another, provided that they are soberly distinguished and applied correctly. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2518-4628 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Neotestamentica
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.10520/AJA2548356_395 |