Apparently something went horribly amiss and a major artery to his brain was severed. Look what he’s become:
Yeah, someone’s brain isn’t working properly. At all. His tweet was responded to thusly:
So, anyway, pray for Mike. Pray for his soon recovery and the recovery of proper blood flow to his brain so he can overcome the horrific deficit presently crippling him.
Well, I studied with Professors Betz and Hengel in Tuebingen the summer of 1987, writing papers on Bultmann’s treatment of John 6, which I call “the Grand Central Station of Johannine critical issues” (four supposed sources, dislocation/rearrangement issues, comparisons-contrasts with Synoptics, theological tensions–semeiology, Christology, sacramentology, eschatology, free-will/determinism–historicity, composition, and narrative issues); the experience was amazing! I think we need to read both Hengel and Bultmann, even though I disagree with both of their Johannine-composition theories, and my own paradigm is closer to Hengel’s than Bultmann’s. So, both are of value, but in different ways; Bultmann shows amazing theological and linguistic acuity that one can learn from, even if his composition approach is not accepted; Hengel shows a rigorous analysis of second-century tradition which corroborates something closer to a traditional view, although he overlooks some evidence that could expand possibilities within his own paradigm.
LikeLike