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

Re: Raynal Re: [XTalk] GOSPEL (OF THE KINGDOM) OF GOD

Expand Messages
  • Gordon Raynal
    Thanks, Bob. And I concur. The debate remains wide open which in many respects is healthy. Of course, there will also be a lot of talking past each other
    Message 1 of 48 , Jan 19, 2011
      Thanks, Bob. And I concur. The debate remains wide open which in
      many respects is healthy. Of course, there will also be a lot of
      talking past each other simply because there continue to be a pretty
      healthy number of "starting points." And as we have (not
      surprisingly) so little historical data to work from and as we have
      very contested views of how to classify the sources and then what to
      make of those sources, it is always healthy to take up others
      "starting points," their data assessment and their hermeneutics to see
      what sorts of treasures are being affirmed.

      In addition to Crossan's book, I would also recommend list members
      spend time with Hal Taussig's book from last year, "In the Beginning
      Was the Meal," and to read Burton Mack's book on Q, as an alternative
      to Crossan's reading. Of course, the list can go, but I would also
      recommend these works.

      Gordon Raynal
      Inman, SC
      On Jan 19, 2011, at 10:16 AM, Bob Schacht wrote:

      > I want to thank Gordon for laying out these differences (below),
      > and want to remind members of this list of the fallacy of the "last
      > man standing" in drawing conclusions about who has "won" the debate
      > on any point. That is, silence from other members of the list does
      > not imply agreement with the last argument presented. Each
      > presentation stands on its own merits, and the reader is left to
      > his/her own devices to determine those merits. This list has no
      > protocol for determining which argument to endorse, no color system,
      > whether red, pink, black, or blue, for evaluating claims. We do not
      > form a Crossanian jury, obliged to decide for one protagonist against
      > another, based on the evidence presented.
      >
      > I do recommend Crossan's *The Birth of Christianity* for a thorough
      > discussion of many of the issues raised on this list in the past year
      > -- not that I think he solves all the problems, but he certainly lays
      > out the methodological issues clearly and thoroughly. Anyone
      > interested in sorting out "Alpha" from "Beta" Christianity would do
      > well to read it-- again, not so much for the "final answer," but for
      > a good introduction to the many issues involved.
      >
      > Bob Schacht
      > Northern Arizona University
      >
      > At 05:50 AM 1/19/2011, Gordon Raynal wrote:
      >> Bruce,
      >>
      >>
      >> 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 said
      >>> 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.
      >>
      >> Gordon Raynal
      >> Inman, SC
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ------------------------------------
      >>
      >> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      >>
      >> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >> List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      >
      > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • RSBrenchley@aol.com
      Message 48 of 48 , Jan 30, 2011
        <<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.

        David M.>>

        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.

        Regards,

        Robert Brenchley
        Birmingham UK


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.