Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 6

Now Bauckham turns his attention to the structure of the gospels themselves. He notes that both John and Luke structure their work with accounts from people who were with Jesus "from the beginning" (Acts 1:21-22, John 2:11). The preface to Luke's gospel, one of the most studied passages in the New Testament, records that Luke's works is from eyewitnesses who were from the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Eyewitness does not have a forensic (courtroom) meaning, but a meaning of observer of events. Bauckham focuses on this phrase, "from the beginning," because in antiquity going to the beginning of the story was important. The right start was essential, citing examples from Josephus and Polybius. What Luke has done, Bauckham suggests, is understood (examined) the story from the beginning (of Jesus) because he has spoken with people who were with Jesus from the beginning--the eyewitnesses to certain events. Not only were eyewitnesses essential to the stories, but eyewitnesses who were present from beginning to end were essential.

Can we see this principle in the gospels? Bauckham argues yes. He argues that Peter is the disciple in Mark mentioned first and last. The first mention of Peter says literally, "Simon and Simon's brother," which emphasizes Simon's name. The final mention of Peter is that the women who saw the empty tomb are to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus is going ahead of them into Galilee. Bauckham says these uses form an inclusio that bracket everything between them as Peter's testimony.

Bauckham also sees this literary device in the gospel of John. In John the first two disciples of John the Baptist are anonymous, until Andrew is named. The other, however, remains unknown. Bauckham argues that this anonymous disciple is the Beloved Disciple and author of this gospel. A few points make the argument: first, John is written from the perspective of the ideal witness (21:24) and ideal witnesses are from the beginning, whom Jesus affirms is to testify to him (15:27). Second, Jesus turns to see the anonymous disciple following him (1:38) and at the end of the Gospel Peter turns to see the disciple whom Jesus loved following (21:20). The connotation of following is of discipleship, as is the word, "remain." (Remember Jesus' words to remain in me.) The first disciples ask Jesus where he is staying and remain with him the whole day (1:38). At the end of the gospel, Jesus tells Peter that if he wants the Beloved Disciple to remain until he comes, then Peter shouldn't worry (21:22). If this disciple is one and the same and author of John, then he has displaced Peter as the authority of this gospel, but Bauckham thinks this is more of a friendly rivalry but with a serious purpose of showing the author a qualified witness.

Bauckham also examines this device in Luke with the women. This is not surprising as Luke draws on more witnesses than just the Twelve. Luke mentions three women in Jesus' Galilean ministry (Luke 8:2-3). They reappear at 24:10, at the crucifixion. While Luke also has a Petrine inclusio, this shorter inclusio shows that Luke owes some of his special material to people other than the Twelve and Peter. The only gospel not to include such a literary device is Matthew and along with the fact that Matthew adds no names other than the ones in Mark, even dropping some of those, this gospel seems not to be as concerned with eyewitness authority as the other gospels.

After examining works by Lucius and Porphyry for the same literary device, Bauckham offers his conclusion. He says that most authoritative witnesses were present for the events narrated and they can therefore vouch for the overall shape of the story. Mark, Luke, and John all use a device to tell us this is the case for the eyewitnesses of their work.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 5

"The Twelve"

What are we to think of this group that seems to be around Jesus constantly, even while he has much larger crowds in his company? No doubt they are symbolic, in number, of Israel and pertinent to Jesus' mission in their calling. Bauckham takes their role a step further, positing that this body was the group that was authoritative over the body of Jesus traditions--teaching and actions.

The lists of the twelve reflect a post-history to Jesus. Just as a genealogy forms a pre-history to a person, so a list of disciples forms a post-history. Their teaching lives on. The lists of the twelve, with small differences, cannot be to introduce them in the gospels because so many of them never reappear in the gospels, but instead serve as the source of these teachings in general. Not one of them is responsible for the traditions, but as a group they are. As a result, all of their names are important.

But if they were so important, then why are their differences? Well, suggests Bauckham, the differences are really quite minimal. All the lists (he gives a table with lists from Matt, Mark, Luke, and Acts) have three groups of four, all headed by the same name (Peter, Philip, James son of Alphaeus). Three of the four lists end with Judas--a sign that this list was developed post-mission. There are, however, a few points of difference.

One such difference is that the lists from Matthew and Mark have Thaddaeus, while Luke and Acts have Judas son of James. Could these names have referred to the same person? While some suggest that this "smacks of harmonization," Bauckham thinks it very plausible. First, individuals often bore two names. Thaddaeus seems to be a Greek name (perhaps Theodosios, Theodotos, Theodoros) which has been shortened into an Aramaic name (Taddai) and then made Greek again, Thaddaeus. The above Greek names were popular with Jews because they contained the Greek word for God (Theo). Several ossuaries (bone boxes) held Palestinian Jews who had double names, and so it would not be out of the question for Thaddaeus to be both Thaddaeus and Judas. In this event, it makes sense that a man named Judas among the twelve would need to be distinguished from Judas Iscariot and that Luke, the historian, would have official lists of the twelve, Judas son of James, when this person was often simply called Thaddaeus among the twelve.

This notion is given more credence by the fact that many of the names in the twelve are distinguished from one another using some of the categories Bauckham mentioned last chapter. Simon is given a nickname, Peter, which helps distinguish him from Simon, the zealot. These distinguishing features seem to originate in the group itself. You have paternal lines added (e.g., James son of Zebedee); paternal lines subbed into a name (Bartholomew--not likely Nathaneal from John's gospel because what makes Bartholomew handy is that Tolmai (Tholomew) is a rare name, as is Nathanael. If his name was Nathanael, you wouldn't need to distinguish him from many people.); nicknames (Peter, Simon the zealot); nickname as a name (Thomas--"twin"; other non-biblical sources call this disciple, "Judas Thomas"); place of origin added (Judas Iscariot, meaning 'of Kerioth'); and occupation (Matthew the tax collector). This last example, however, brings us to another difficulty.

Why does Matthew's list have this piece of information about Matthew, but no one else? Could the story of Levi the tax collector be about the same person as Matthew the tax collector? Bauckham judges this to be implausible. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke have the story of a tax collector called, Mark and Luke refer to this man by the name of Levi. They do not connect him with the Matthew of their lists at any point. While they simply may not have known they were the same person, getting lists and eyewitness account from different sources and not connecting the dots, this is not likely because both Matthew and Levi were fairly common names. One does not find evidence of Palestinian Jews having two common names. Bauckham suggests that the person who collected Matthew wanted to give a calling narrative for the disciple whose accounts formed this gospel and so applied the narrative of Levi, which he knew from Mark, to Matthew. It's possible that the very simplicity of the calling of Levi the tax collector could be applied to just about any tax collector, which was, evidently, Matthew's occupation. If this is true, then the redactor of Matthew was not the disciple himself, as he could have simply told his own conversion narrative.

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.

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.