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.