Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 4

You might remember the Jesus controversy of about a year ago where a tomb in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Talpiot was discussed. In it were a series of bone boxes marked Jesus, Joses, Mary, Joseph, and some others. I blogged quite a bit about it at the time, but as it died out as being not likely about Jesus of Nazareth, so did my blogging. Chapter 4 of Bauckham's book considers early Palestinian Jewish names and their appropriateness to his study.

After some praise for Tal Ilan's work, Bauckham distinguishes himself from her work by using a smaller amount of figures. He finds 447 male names occurring 2625 times and 74 female names occurring 328 names. The use of names in the New Testament corresponds nicely with the overall use of names, including lists of names, their popularity, and rarity (71-74).

Why might names have been popular? While some find the narrative of Israel to play a role, Bauckham believes that the Hasmonean dynasty plays a larger role, as well as other nationalistic expectations and deliverance. Notably absent from popular names are David, Elijah, and Moses. The likelihood for this is the expectation of three figures leading a new theocracy, a Messiah (son of David), high priest (returning Elijah), and prophet like Moses (78). Parents did not use these names because using them would have put some serious expectations on their kids!

So, with so few names, how did they tell people apart? Bauckham lists eleven categories.
1. Variant forms of the names (e.g., Zacchaeus short for Zachariah);
2. Patronymic added (e.g., John son of Zachariah);
3. Patronymic substituted (e.g., Barabbas; Bar is Aramaic for 'son of')
4. Names of husbands or sons added (e.g., Mary of Clopas, John 19:25)
5. Nickname added (e.g., James the Less)
6. Nickname substituted (e.g., Cephas)
7. Place of origin or dwelling (e.g., Jesus of Nazareth; Joseph of Arimethea)
8. Place of origin or dwelling substituted, though rare (e.g., Imma, daughter of Hananiah, mother of the Sokhite)
9. Family Name (e.g., Joseph bar Caiaphas, who appears in the gospels simply as Caiaphas, the high priest)
10. Two names in two languages, as when Palestinian Jews had both a Semitic and Greek name (e.g., Silas / Silvanus)
11. Occupation (e.g., Simon the Tanner)

Bauckham offers the following conclusions from his onomastics (study of names). The names recorded in the New Testament correlate to the usage of names of which we are aware in the same time. This means these names are unlikely to have been added later within Palestinian Jewish Christianity and certainly not from outside this tradition. This means the use of names are plausibly attested to by the reason offered in chapter three: they are connected with actual events recounted and tied to eyewitnesses of these events.

Tattoos

As a Pastor, people often ask me if I think it's wrong to get a tattoo. I've had friends think I was mad at them for getting one. I've had friends tattoo Scripture on them as a way to identify their faith. I've had friends think it's wrong to get tattoos because passages in Leviticus speak against it, forgetting or ignoring that such injunctions were connected with setting Israel apart from the religious practices of other nations. Most people who find them appealing find them as a way to express themselves and their individuality.

The irony, of course, is that both groups of people have missed the point. As getting tattoos becomes more and more common, it's not a sign of individuality, but of social capitulation and in such a society, being set apart is far deeper than having undecorated sin. As has always been the case, what matters in being an individual is being a person whose character rises above the society in which one finds itself and character is not measured by the lack of colored inks on one's skin.

Check out this article for a much better way of saying what I tried to.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 3

Bauckham believes that the issue of names in the gospels has never been satisfactorily addressed. In this chapter he sets out to examine names in the gospels: why some names might appear in a gospel, but not in another and why some names might be present at all.

Bauckham thinks that names probably lasted while these people played a role in certain communities and were known, but would have dropped out (as Matthew and Luke omit certain names found in Mark) as they became more obscure and less recognizable (perhaps having died). However, this is only part of the solution.

Sticking to the theme of the book, Bauckham believes that names are connected with eyewitness testimony. The people whose names are attached to stories are likely the ones who told their own stories and continued to tell them. For example, Cleopas and the anonymous disciple on the road to Emmaus, is possibly told by Cleopas himself as his identity is not essential to the story. (While adding names was common to Jewish commentary on texts, the amount of unnamed recipients of healing in the synoptics suggests that this practice was not carried on by the early Christians.) Bauckham believes that Cleopas name is attached to the story because it was passed on by him.

Bauckham next discusses the women at the crucifixion, burial and empty tomb of Jesus. The differences in the lists (i.e., only Mark mentions Salome; only Luke has Joanna at the empty tomb; only Matthew has the Mother of the sons of Zebedee at the crucifixion) can be interpreted as stemming from eyewitness accounts. Evidently, Salome has become less recognizable between Mark and Matthew/Luke. Evidently, both Matthew and Luke scrutinize and record only women known to be present. For instance, Matthew doesn't "beef" up the list of people at the empty tomb, omitting some present at the crucifixion. Only Luke mentions Joanna, obscure already as she is unique to his gospel, evidently because he has sources that she really was there. No other benefit to listing her is available. (Aside, perhaps, from an inclusio from earlier in his gospel, but even then: Why list her to form an inclusio if she wasn't present in the first place, perhaps a source?)

What about Simon of Cyrene who carried Jesus' cross? Only Mark records that Simon was father of Alexander and Rufus. The inclusion of their names is inconsequential as his name, though popular, is already attached to his hometown. So, if their inclusion is not to mark Simon (as Matthew and Luke believe unnecessary by omitting their names), then why does Mark include them? Whether because their father abandoned the Christian movement or because he died between the gospel event and the writing of Mark, Alexander and Rufus could have been included as reference to the ones who shared this story with Mark.

Bauckham also applies this notion of recognition in early Christian community and eyewitness testimony to the named recipients of healing, since only three whose stories are recorded are named: Jairus (whose daughter was healed), Bartimaeus, and Lazarus. This inclusion of names suggests the fame and continuing testimony of these people in the early days of the faith. (Mark records both Bartimaeus and Jairus. Quite possibly they were living while Mark was gathering his information for the writing of his gospel, given they could have been alive even 40 years after Jesus' death. Again, as Matthew and Luke omit names [Matthew omits both Bartimaeus and Jairus, while Luke omits Jairus], it's possible they have died between Mark's research and writing and that of Matthew and Luke.)

In all, in my opinion, this chapter is better said to "suit" Bauckham's notion than "prove" it. It could be said that the gospel writers were very slick in their writing and have included just enough names to set them aside from earlier Jewish practice, but have still fabricated such names. Maybe it's the modernist in me, but I just can't think that people with nothing to gain would be so devious.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 2

While Papias, Bishop of the Roman province of Asia, and his work (only existing in quotations in other works) has been debated, Bauckham finds it has recently been ignored. However, given Bauckham's desire to examine whether the gospels developed close to eye-witness testimony, this third generation Christian is of vital importance.

Papias knew Philip's daughter's and possibly Philip (whether of the Seven or the Twelve is unsure) himself in his childhood. His work, which some date to c. 130 and others to 110 and earlier, concerns the life and teaching of Jesus. Important to Bauckham's cause, however, is not just when Papias wrote, but when he collected and inquired of his research. The prologue to Papias' work is where Bauckham spends the most of his time figuring this out.

Buackham lists four categories of people from Papias' prologue:
1. people present at the teaching of "the elders";
2. the elders (who learned from the disciples);
3. recognizable disciples of Jesus (i.e., Matthew, Peter, Andrew...);
4. Aristion and John the Elder (who were disciples, as well).

Papias researches from what the people present at the elders' teaching were saying the disciples had said and what they heard Aristion and John the Elder saying. He says that a living and surviving voice is more profitable to him than books. Of course, while some think this ironic--that one would be writing about the research that voices yield--Bauckham counters by saying that it is the situation of these voices becoming scarce or even dying that would warrant this writing.

The categories are essential to Bauckham's point. He says that the reason Papias separates categories 3 and 4 are because those in three are dead, whereas those in 4 are still living, though he cannot travel to hear them. This is why he listens and seeks out those who have heard them. This, naturally, puts those in category 4 as being very old, having lived within the actual lifetime of Jesus, but not impossibly so. Papias' preference for a living voice is not unusual. It is related to the desire to learn a craft from a master via demonstration, not merely via words. Bauckham concludes that Papias' Prologue reveals that his inquiries priviliged eyewitness testimony, even second- and third-hand reports of this testimony, given that he was unable to obtain first-hand reports.

Some have argued that Papias' words of "living and surviving voice" refer to oral tradition. Bauckham criticizes this view, however, by pointing to the importance of eyewitness testimony in ancient historiography and by emphasizing the difference between oral tradition and oral history. Oral tradition only forms through generations. As Bauckham has interpreted Papias' sources, at most four steps exist between Papias and the actual disciples of Jesus (disciples--possible intervening stage--elders--disciples of elders--Papias; this is not to say that the elders are now dead, but that their disciples are the ones traveling and whom Papias is hearing). Moreover, only two stages occur between John the Elder and Papias! Simply put, there is not enough time for oral tradition to develop nor would Papias have found it as convincing. This means that the second century Christians who believed the gospels were attached to eye-witness testimony, rather than communities who edited and developed these teachings for their own purposes have good reason to be trusted. This means the proof is somewhat in hte pudding: While the form-critics of the twentieth century have read the Gospels in light of their own presuppositions of this development of oral tradition, Bauckham seeks to read the gospels as eyewitness testimony, taking seriously the beliefs of the early Christians and ancient historiographical practices.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 1

Richard Bauckham sets out to merge history and theology in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses." Obviously this is a huge undertaking given the last two hundred years of Jesus scholarship and quests for the historical one. Immediately questions arise: can such a purely historical Jesus be constructed? Do the gospels mask Jesus as much, more, or less than they reveal him? If the gospels are theology, must they be treated as less than history? If the gospels are theology, whom do they reveal? Are historians and theologians separate? Bauckham seeks a way forward in the midst of this division of theology and history, having history and theology meet "in the historical Jesus." This book is "a first attempt to lay out some of the evidence and methods" for this meeting (5).

The main category for this meeting is testimony. Bauckham immediately this does not mean the gospels are testimony rather than history because testimony always seeks to be trusted. While this does not mean that testimony is treated uncritically, neither does it mean that testimony is irrelevant to its own verification. This means that the gospels, as testimony, can give access to the historical Jesus (5). Indeed, testimony is at times the best source of history and at times its only source, as well.

Thus, Bauckham suggests that testimony lets us treat the gospels as both historical and theological. Testimony is the category we need "to read the Gospels as precisely the kind of text we need in order to recognize the disclosure of God in the history of Jesus" (5). The gospels are recorded ways the witnesses perceived historical events. This means that Bauckham is arguing that the forms the gospels take are "much closer to the form" in which the eyewitnesses told their stories than most form-critical scholarship believes. This does not mean there is no editing, but that they remain faithful to how the eyewitnesses told it. Bauckham also concludes that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness. In order to do this, Bauckham holds to the writing of the gospels having been done in living memory of some of the participants. The time between Jesus and the Gospels was not spanned by community transmission, but by the testimony and in the name of the eyewitnesses until they died.

Bauckham then turns to Samuel Byrskog and his recent work, Story as History--History as Story. Following Byrskog, he claims that in ancient historiography, this practice of taking testimony for history was perfectly acceptable. Oral reports and direct experience of history was valued by Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus, and Tacitus. Good historians criticized using only written sources, even to the point that some pretended to have firsthand knowledge of events. This was the importance of eyewitness testimony. This means that involvement in events was far from disqualifying one from an accurate telling, but was essential to it. "The coinherence of fact and meaning, empirical report and engaged interpretation, was not a problem for these historians" (9). (This nears the contemporary study of "oral history.") Certain criticisms of this approach have been lodged (11), but requires testing and development, which Bauckham seeks to accomplish.

Now we see how Bauckham will treat the gospels: accounts written by people who used oral reports of actual eyewitnesses and remained faithful to these sources, as this was the practice of historiography. They used this method because otherwise certain access to truth was unavailable.

"Is There a Meaning in this Text?", Conclusion

The conclusion to Vanhoozer's tome answers the question, "What is Vanhoozer doing in this text?"

First, Vanhoozer sought to uncover the philosophical and theological presuppositions of contemporary debates around language, texts, signs, etc. These should be placed on the table and acknowledged. Vanhoozer's own theological presupposition is Trinitarian theology, which he believes is the necessary condition in order to experience meaningful communication. "Speaker (Father), Word (Son), and reception (Spirit) are all interrelated" (456). God's trinitarian communicative action is the "paradigm" for our own communicating. Interpretation is the reception of the author's intention. And there is always interpretation because one cannot live suspicion.

The text, the communicated action of an author with an intention, illocution (force), and efficacy (result) is more like a person than a thing. This is because the words communicated are icons of the speaker. So, the reader is to recognize the face of the other in the text other than their own. Vanhoozer then lays out the sins of interpretation: pride and sloth. The one sees the face of the reader; the other forgoes the hard work of seeing the face of the other. In their place must be humility and conviction: humility and conviction combine to say there is an other to discern, but that the reader may not be able to exhaust this meaning on their own and that reaching understanding is easy.

But Vanhoozer closes not with standing (conviction) or understanding (interpretation), but with following. The final move of the reader is to follow the Text, shaped by the Word and obedient to its call.

But is it 'church'?

Thom Rainer and and Eric Geiger believe a common theme unites churches that are growing numerically and, more importantly, developing better disciples. Surveys distributed to churches of varying size, denomination, and structure, revealed that simplicity captures the process these "vibrant" churches have for creating disciples, meaning the discipleship process is clear, sequenced, aligned, and focused. The result is the helpful and readable book Simple Church.

Two things struck me as I read the book, however. First, it's not really that simple. Movement is still complex and requires explanation. While I think the vibrant churches are simpler than others, and appreciated the book's desire to make this clear, I was not blown away by how simple church could be. Second, and related to the first, the authors seem to assume we all know what church is. While reading the book's descriptions, I kept asking myself, "But is that church? Could Peter or Paul have ever imagined the church being that?"

The answer, I think, is no. 1st century Jews could never have imagined that that's what the church could become. I think they would see it as a good thing with lots of potential and possible traps and encourage people to be involved with them, but would not call it church. Church is much deeper, better, tougher, and much less safe. As a result, I wonder if a different category is necessary for the institutional church? (Which, again, I think is a good thing--after all, I work for one!) In the end, Geiger and Rainer have written a helpful book to help ______s become simple. They show how ______s can be more effective. I just don't know if what they are talking to are churches.