Re: [XTalk] GOSPEL (OF THE KINGDOM) OF GOD
On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:53 AM, E Bruce Brooks wrote:
> To: Crosstalk
> In Response To: Gordon Raynal
> On: Jesus
> From: Bruce
> I here indulge my sense that it is not very productive to debate who
> what to who, and with a certain authority in Gordon's own
> presention, I will
> take Gordon's suggestions simply as made by him.
As I said in my note, after your run of many, many notes presenting
your understanding of the materials, I wanted to simply put a note to
briefly describe another vantage point for understanding the
historical figure of Jesus. You and I, in particular, have a very
different understanding of a.) the dating and relationship of sources,
b.) where to find the mission agenda and what the actual mission
agenda was, and c.) the genre of Mark and how Mark utilized his
sources to create his narrative of Jesus, the anointed. I entirely
agree that it would not be productive to enter into debate. The
purpose of my note was not to debate you, but to put on this list a
reminder of an alternate approach. Hence, I'm cutting out your own
responses to let them stand for the interested reader, and rather
simply write a bit about your last section.
> But the doing of history is a different thing, and for that, we need
> to park
> our feelings somewhere on the shore, and trek upstream, and face
> whatever we
> find at the source end. Or so it looks from here.
This rhetorical ploy that the differences we (and others) have are
motivated by "feelings" is dismissive in the extreme. Laying that
aside, I entirely agree that the issue is "the source end." You find
somewhere in Mark's Gospel that Source end. I understand Mark to be a
narrative creation from some 40 to 50 or so years after Jesus, and so
"not an Alpha" document, to use your language. (more like a Delta
communication, actually). I note this not to debate you in
particular, but to simply say that serious scholars are nowhere near a
consensus on Jesus, as every SBL Session shows, because the source
dating is so markedly different. But in addition to that, so is the
understanding of the genre of the materials we have. Thus the
differences will continue and continue.
- <<Ariel, D.T., A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem,
Liber Annuus 32, 1982, pp 273-326.
Unless we have an old print copy in the pre-1985 stack here,
the data for denarii in Jerusalem is out of reach
just now, so, at least for the time being, I'll just shift to your
view that there weren't that many around in the city.
I'm having trouble getting hold of it as well, so I'll have to go by
memory, unfortunately. I did contact Ariel himself, but he's got nothing beyond
a single paper copy. While it's not strictly on topic, I do have H Gitler's
'A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE FROM EXCAVATIONS IN JERUSALEM'
(Liber Annuus 1996), which covers bronze coinage from the city. No
imperial bronze is recorded from before the 4th Century, after the abolition of
the provincial mints, and their replacement with imperial ones.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]