Tag: Gospels and Acts (Canonical)

Revised last paragraph about an hour after first posting this.

In my previous post I commented that the Gospel of Mark is the least “petrine” of the gospels doctrinally. I have since turned to chapter 7 to find I must clear my mind of that presumption and reassess Mark’s extent of “petrine-ness” and read with an open mind.

7. The Petrine Perspective in the Gospel of Mark

Bauckham opens this 7th chapter by stating categorically in relation to the last,

We have seen that Mark’s Gospel has the highest frequency of reference to Peter among the Gospels, and that it uses the inclusio of eyewitness testimony to indicate that Peter was its main eyewitness source. (p.155)

So what began as a hypothesis has become a phenomenon of Mark that “we have seen”. Those who have read my discussion of chapter 6 will know I regard the validity of this assertion as questionable.

Bauckham now asks in chapter 7 if we can go “further than this” and see if there is evidence that the gospel of Mark is narrated from Peter’s personal perspective, and to what extent Peter appears as an individual and not just as a representative of the Twelve. Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 7”

6. Eyewitnesses “from the Beginning”

On page 114 Bauckham writes:

If the Gospels embody eyewitness testimony, then some at least of the eyewitnesses must have been able to testify not just to particular episodes of particular sayings of Jesus but to the whole course of Jesus’ story. Broadly the four Gospels agree on this scope of this story: it begins with John the Baptist and it ends with the resurrection appearances.

1. First of all Bauckham has not yet established (merely hypothesised) that the gospels were the result of any “eyewitness” reports — after 5 chapters he has yet to point to a single item of evidence to justify this assertion;
2. Secondly, Bauckham is guilty of limiting his study to the canonical gospels exclusively when we know that there were other gospels and these 4 were preserved because of their “orthodox” status and frequently heavily redacted over the years — compare the additional ending of Mark after 16:8 to make it conform to the “broad scope” of other gospels;
3. Thirdly, it is perhaps debatable to assert that the four gospels broadly agree: John has the temple cleansing — a singular event — at the beginning, not the end, of the story; some gospels have the resurrection appearances in Galilee and others in Jerusalem; Mark has a secretive Jesus who hides his identity while John has one proclaiming his divinity at every opportunity; Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 6”

Way back on another website I summarized a few very basic principles to keep in mind when analyzing biblical texts — specifically for Old Testament texts but the principles apply to historical analysis of any texts — gospels included.

Till I get to finishing off chapter 5 this might be an appropriate place to stick a link to these basics (The Bible: History or Story?) because they are also a clear flag to show where I am coming from in my reading of the gospels and biblical studies. They all apply to B’s assumptions (not only his of course) except that the 4th listed in B’s case should be nuanced from “many generations” to “a single generation”.

They are far from comprehensive, they are basic “common” sense, they do not presuppose which way to read texts, and they help guard against bringing unconscious presumptions into the texts we read. We need to find evidence (not more assumptions or hypotheses) before deciding which way to read texts.

The link above is from my In Search of Ancient Israel.

More afterthoughts, oversights, erratum, from the chapter 4 posts:

4th Feb 07, 9.00 am Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Ch 4/WIFTA”

Speculative digressions

Bauckham follows with a speculative set of digressions suggesting possible reasons why some names were more popular than others. Some, he suggests, were popular because they recalled names with anti-Hellenistic associations of liberation or conquest (e.g. Hasmonean names); others were popular for the opposite reason — because they jelled so easily with similar sounding Hellenistic names (e.g. Simon/Simeon)! Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 4b”

4. Palestinian Jewish Names

This chapter “temporarily steps aside from our investigation of the eyewitnesses” to explore a topic that “will usefully inform” that study when resumed (p.67). Unfortunately Bauckham does not clarify with any precision his terms here or offer cogently supported rationales for accepting some names and rejecting others from the lists he works with. I was left wondering if he was trying to establish a point about the gospels with tools that were simply not designed for the job. Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 4a”

Have updated my collected after-thoughts on my chapter 1 /WIFTA In brief, I remark that there is simply no such “phenomenon” as “named and unnamed characters” in the bulk of literary fiction and nonfiction stories that “cries out for explanation”. That an author does not name every single character making an appearance is simply to avoid the clutter of overburdening an audience with too much pointless detail. In the case of the first written of our gospels, Mark, it is clear that when the author does decide to employ a name for a character it is for the mnemonic/theological/message point of aligning an event with a name representative of that event. Thus in a healing of raising a girl “from sleep” we have the name “enlightened/awakened”, Jairus; in the restoring of a man from the shame of begging to following the royal “son of David”, we have the Son of Honour, Bartimaeus; and others I have also mentioned in earlier posts.

Meanwhile, another thought here: Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Other, 1”

Have now completed reading Chapter 4, Palestinian Jewish Names. Had feared it would be more technical and complex than the effort was worth but as questions arose I got drawn into far more than I ever expected. There is much more of interest in this chapter than I anticipated and look forward to writing up my notes on it.

With magical electronic spreadsheet technology and open source conversion software I have been able to prepare my own tables extracted from Bauckham’s — which on first glance look to me like they invite a different hypothesis from B’s for the selections of names. The hypothesis I am thinking of has been suggested several times by others already although I understand it has not found ready widespread support in mainstream scholarship. In a few days I hope to re-emerge from real life work and get my commentary on chapter 4 up here. Meanwhile, for those who like tables here is what I will be basing some of my commentary on….. (They are all pdf files.)

Names in Mark

Download (PDF, 41KB)

Names in Matthew

Download (PDF, 41KB)

Names in Luke

Download (PDF, 42KB)

Names in John

Download (PDF, 40KB)

Names in Acts

Download (PDF, 42KB)

There appear to be some errors in the tables in B’s book which I have not always corrected, and no doubt there will be some errors in my own. I also am aware that I have not been consistent in listing only those names B selects according to his criteria. And I also realize I have listed Simon Peter as both Simon and Peter. But feel free to point out any obvious errors and oversights.

8 pm 27th Jan 07

Forgot to add another theological (not eyewitness verification) reason for the naming of Mary mother of James and Joses at the end of Mark’s gospel. Early in the gospel the author has Jesus ask who is his true mother. He employs a scene of his physical mother not being able to reach her son for the crowd (again– as in similar stories in this gospel — foreshadowing the time Jesus will be unreachable behind the door of the tomb) to draw the distinction between his spiritual family and his physical family. At the end of the gospel the author pointedly refers to Jesus’ mother as the mother of James and Joses, — Jesus is omitted (unlike earlier and 6.3). Following Weeden, Tolbert, et al, …. The author is telling the reader that his earthly mother, like the twelve, have no part in him. (Other gospel authors would later correct Mark.) His readers, rather, are his true spiritual family. So his mother is looking in the wrong place for him. (The Christ is not here — as was already alluded to in Mark 13. But there is so much more to this that it is really another topic.) The point is, this is enough to suggest that the mention of the Mary mother of James and Joses here is for theological reasons first and last.

10 pm. 26th Jan 07

Forgot to add that Schmidt does not himself single out the country origin of the bearer of the weapon of execution in the Roman triumphal procession. Continue reading “Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Chapter 3/WIFTA”