Richard Bauckham - Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

[Steven Carr]

On page 126 of this book, Richard Bauckham claims that the inclusion of Simon Peter's name at the beginning and end of Mark's Gospel form an 'inclusio' which signals that Mark was designating Peter as an eyewitness for the book.

Apart from the fact that John the Baptist, not Simon Peter , is the first person named, does Bauckham have anything to back up his seemingly absurd claim that inclusio = eyewitness testimony?

Did anybody in the first 3 centuries remark upon this 'inclusio = eyewitness testimony' feature of Mark's Gospel?

Did anybody ever teach that authors could use inclusio as a method of indicating eyewitness testimony, or warn that such a technique was not to be used?

Bauckham claims that this 'inclusio = eyewitness' techniqe might have been invented by Mark. Is this not a clear sign that Bauckham is resorting to ad hoc untestable , circular hypotheses? How does Bauckham know that an unprecedent narrative technique was invented by Mark?

Is not the whole thing preposterous?

And more importantly, un-evidenced?

[Ben C Smith]

On page 126 of this book, Richard Bauckham claims that the inclusion of Simon Peter's name at the beginning and end of Mark's Gospel form an 'inclusio' which signals that Mark was designating Peter as an eyewitness for the book.

Apart from the fact that John the Baptist, not Simon Peter , is the first person named, does Bauckham have anything to back up his seemingly absurd claim that inclusio = eyewitness testimony?

Did anybody in the first 3 centuries remark upon this 'inclusio = eyewitness testimony' feature of Mark's Gospel?

Did anybody ever teach that authors could use inclusio as a method of indicating eyewitness testimony, or warn that such a technique was not to be used?

Bauckham claims that this 'inclusio = eyewitness' techniqe might have been invented by Mark. Is this not a clear sign that Bauckham is resorting to ad hoc untestable , circular hypotheses? How does Bauckham know that an unprecedent narrative technique was invented by Mark?

Is not the whole thing preposterous?

And more importantly, un-evidenced?

This was one of the weakest parts of his thesis, IMVHO. I do not think even his adduced examples (from Porphyry) support his case.

Ben.

[Steven Carr]

This was one of the weakest parts of his thesis, IMVHO. I do not think even his adduced examples (from Porphyry) support his case.

Ben.

Not even when Bauckham claims that those works might have picked up the technique from Mark's Gospel?

So what evidence does Bauckham give for his claims?

And why do leading NT scholars feel that they do not need evidence before writing books?

Did Bauckham have no unease over the fact that no ancient author described the technique that he claims reveal the eyewitnesses behind the Gospels?

[Toto]

Is this going to turn into a case where apologists will cite the book as proof that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony, while most skeptics will find the proposition too flimsy to bother rebutting?

At least Stephen Carlson notes on his blog (http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2007_03_01_arch.html)His use of Porphyry to establish the device of a testimonial inclusio is very interesting, though it is unclear how applicable Porphyry’s case is to Mark and Luke. Porphyry was a personal eyewitness to at least some of Plotinus’s life, but no one claims the same about the (traditional) authors of Mark and Luke for Jesus’s life. At any rate, it could nonetheless be a helpful lead into investigating a writer’s sources.

[Toto]

And why do leading NT scholars feel that they do not need evidence before writing books?

...

I don't want to defend Bauckham on this, but I think that NT scholars are following the lead of post modern literary criticism, where the text is everything and you can write about your interpretation of the text. You just have to be careful when they switch paradigms and claim to be doing history.

[jyoshu]

On page 126 of this book, Richard Bauckham claims that the inclusion of Simon Peter's name at the beginning and end of Mark's Gospel form an 'inclusio' which signals that Mark was designating Peter as an eyewitness for the book.

Apart from the fact that John the Baptist, not Simon Peter , is the first person named, does Bauckham have anything to back up his seemingly absurd claim that inclusio = eyewitness testimony?

Did anybody in the first 3 centuries remark upon this 'inclusio = eyewitness testimony' feature of Mark's Gospel?

Did anybody ever teach that authors could use inclusio as a method of indicating eyewitness testimony, or warn that such a technique was not to be used?

Bauckham claims that this 'inclusio = eyewitness' techniqe might have been invented by Mark. Is this not a clear sign that Bauckham is resorting to ad hoc untestable , circular hypotheses? How does Bauckham know that an unprecedent narrative technique was invented by Mark?

Is not the whole thing preposterous?

And more importantly, un-evidenced?

I agree the evidence is pretty scant for his theory. For that matter, we don't even know if the post-16:8 ending included in most english translations is the one that was there originally.

But I think you're being a bit hard about Bauckham bringing up something unprecedented, or that it has to be corroborated by writings from the first 3 centuries. After all, how else could any new theory be made?

[Steven Carr]

Did anybody ever teach that authors could use inclusio as a method of indicating eyewitness testimony, or warn that such a technique was not to be used?

I agree the evidence is pretty scant for his theory. For that matter, we don't even know if the post-16:8 ending included in most english translations is the one that was there originally.

But I think you're being a bit hard about Bauckham bringing up something unprecedented, or that it has to be corroborated by writings from the first 3 centuries. After all, how else could any new theory be made?


What is the difference between Bauckham's 'inclusio = eyewitness testimony' and Drosnin's Bible Code?

Or Bauckham's 'dropping names means eyewitness testimony' technique?

Both Bauckham and Drosnin claim to have detected the use of seemingly unlikely literary techniques which ancient authors never claim to have used and which ancient readers never claim to have spotted .

Surely Bauckham's book is the Historical Jesus euqivalent of the Bible Code?

[Chris Weimer]

I wouldn't say it's the Bible Code absurdity, but it's not compelling at any rate. Actually, I find most of Bauckham not compelling.

[Steven Carr]

I wouldn't say it's the Bible Code absurdity, but it's not compelling at any rate. Actually, I find most of Bauckham not compelling.

Why is the idea that it occurred to one anonymous Christian to signal his eyewitnesses by naming him first and last in a book not as absurd as the Bible Code? (ignoring the fact that Peter is not the first named person in Mark)


And , more importantly, what is the difference in methodology between Drosnin's ad hoc searching for something he can use and Bauckham's ad hoc searching for any literary features he can find, which he can use?

Where is Baucham's methodology and why does Historical Jesus reasearch have no methodology?

[Chris Weimer]

Well, look at it this way. You've erroneously used Richard Bauckham as the standard for Historical Jesus scholarship, by making the whole field lack sound methodology because one scholar doesn't. Does that make you a Christian since you used logical fallacies? No. Likewise, Biblecode and Bauckham, though they may both be wrong, and though they may both employ dubious methods for arriving at their conclusion, they aren't on the same level.

[jyoshu]

I agree the evidence is pretty scant for his theory. For that matter, we don't even know if the post-16:8 ending included in most english translations is the one that was there originally.

But I think you're being a bit hard about Bauckham bringing up something unprecedented, or that it has to be corroborated by writings from the first 3 centuries. After all, how else could any new theory be made?


What is the difference between Bauckham's 'inclusio = eyewitness testimony' and Drosnin's Bible Code?

Or Bauckham's 'dropping names means eyewitness testimony' technique?

Both Bauckham and Drosnin claim to have detected the use of seemingly unlikely literary techniques which ancient authors never claim to have used and which ancient readers never claim to have spotted .

Surely Bauckham's book is the Historical Jesus euqivalent of the Bible Code?

I would say if either Bauckham or Drosnin's ideas stand up to scrutiny over time, then they'll have something. (and I don't think they will.) In terms of process of acceptance, Biblical scholarship is a bit like scientific theory among scientists--it tends to need to stand up to scrutiny and consensus in the Christian world over time.

I'm not saying either are right. I'm just questioning your assertion that the idea had to exist in the 1st 3 centuries to be taken seriously, or that it can't be unprecedented. At least that's the impression I got. For instance, higher Biblical criticism would never have come into place if Biblical scholars held to some litmus test that the method had to have existed in the 1st 3 centuries.

[Steven Carr]

I would say if either Bauckham or Drosnin's ideas stand up to scrutiny over time, then they'll have something. (and I don't think they will.) In terms of process of acceptance, Biblical scholarship is a bit like scientific theory among scientists--it tends to need to stand up to scrutiny and consensus in the Christian world over time.

I'm not saying either are right. I'm just questioning your assertion that the idea had to exist in the 1st 3 centuries to be taken seriously, or that it can't be unprecedented. At least that's the impression I got. For instance, higher Biblical criticism would never have come into place if Biblical scholars held to some litmus test that the method had to have existed in the 1st 3 centuries.


You mean if the Gospel of Mark uses literary techniques unknown to ancient authors, then it is wrong to ask for evidence of this?

[JoeWallack]

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1:17

And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. (ASV)

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_10

"Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel`s sake,

but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last first."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16:7

"But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. (ASV)"

JW:
And so Peter is the First to be called and the Last to be called. Just as "Mark's" Jesus predicted.

Now what is that description for a Christian who in his zeal for Jesus gives an explanation which is not found in the Text and Ignores an explanation which is found in the Text? Toto?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

[Toto]

...
I would say if either Bauckham or Drosnin's ideas stand up to scrutiny over time, then they'll have something. (and I don't think they will.) In terms of process of acceptance, Biblical scholarship is a bit like scientific theory among scientists--it tends to need to stand up to scrutiny and consensus in the Christian world over time.

...

Biblical scholarship may aspire to the standards of scientific theory, but scientific theory requires an open mind and a willingness to challenge accepted ideas.

[Chris Weimer]

Biblical scholarship may aspire to the standards of scientific theory, but scientific theory requires an open mind and a willingness to challenge accepted ideas.

:rolleyes:

[Toto]

Back at you, Chris. Do you think that there is any evidence that would convince Bauckham or his fellow evangelicals of the non-historicity of the gospels? Can you imagine any other branch of inquiry where anyone would try to extract evidence of eyewitness testimony from a literary creation?

[Chris Weimer]

Back at you, Chris. Do you think that there is any evidence that would convince Bauckham or his fellow evangelicals of the non-historicity of the gospels? Can you imagine any other branch of inquiry where anyone would try to extract evidence of eyewitness testimony from a literary creation?

1. Who cares?

2. What is Caesar's Two Books on War, Alex?

[Steven Carr]

Back at you, Chris. Do you think that there is any evidence that would convince Bauckham or his fellow evangelicals of the non-historicity of the gospels? Can you imagine any other branch of inquiry where anyone would try to extract evidence of eyewitness testimony from a literary creation?

How?

By noticing that every 14th letter spells out ‘Simon Peter was an eyewitness’? Or that the first named person in a work (or even the second named person…) was the same person mentioned last in a work?

Or by using other literary techniques never mentioned by ancient authors?

[Ben C Smith]

So what evidence does Bauckham give for his claims?

Let me go on record here as affirming that Bauckham is a first-rate scholar. Did you read the chapters on Polycrates and Irenaeus? The chapters on Papias? Have you read his commentary on Jude and 2 Peter? His work on the Apocalypse of Peter or on the Testament of Moses? His range is excellent, his ideas innovative and provocative.

Last time you accused Bauckham, on this board, of spinning theories without evidence all one had to do was actually read Bauckham to discover that he explicitly, and repeatedly, called that aspect of his hypothesis a suggestion. It is not his fault that you cannot read. Nor is it his fault that you insist on trolling blogs that mention his name.

I do not have the book in front of me. Maybe somewhere in that chapter he wrote something that, unlike last time, insists the inclusio hypothesis is far more than a suggestion. I do not recall offhand. But what I do know is that, if he did, we would not hear about it from you.

You asked about his evidence. He gave Porphyry as evidence, attempting to uncover a broader pattern. I happen not to agree with his conclusions based on that very evidence. Apparently you do not agree either. That does not in any way mean that Bauckham is not a good scholar.

Ben.

[Spanky]

I'm confused:huh:

Is it this?
Chris Weimer Well, look at it this way. You've erroneously used Richard Bauckham as the standard for Historical Jesus scholarship, by making the whole field lack sound methodology because one scholar doesn't.

or this?
Ben C. Smith Let me go on record here as affirming that Bauckham is a first-rate scholar. Did you read the chapters on Polycrates and Irenaeus? The chapters on Papias? Have you read his commentary on Jude and 2 Peter? His work on the Apocalypse of Peter or on the Testament of Moses? His range is excellent, his ideas innovative and provocative.

;)

[Chris Weimer]

What, do you think that Ben and I are the same person with the exact same views? Or that Bauckham's historical Jesus methodology is going to be of the same quality as his exegetical work on pseudepigrapha or early church fathers?

[Toto]

Bauckham is undoubtedly a first rate scholar, but the sort of scholarship that he practices is closer to literary criticism than history. Literary criticism values imagination, ideas, textual analysis. But since he is such a good scholar, one would think that he would access any available historical methodology if it were available.

Chris thinks that there is some good historical methodology out there, but somehow this fine scholar does not practice it.

Do I have that right?

[Steven Carr]

Last time you accused Bauckham, on this board, of spinning theories without evidence all one had to do was actually read Bauckham to discover that he explicitly, and repeatedly, called that aspect of his hypothesis a suggestion. It is not his fault that you cannot read. Nor is it his fault that you insist on trolling blogs that mention his name.
.

So anybody who reads his books will know that he does not 'suggest' something in one chapter, and then say that it has been 'demonstated' in later chapters?

And despite such excellent scholarship from a first-rate scholar, the best he can come up with is a suggestion that the Gospels are based on eye-witness testimony?

I'm just amazed that nobody has suggested that before.

Still, at least you agree that he does not demonstrate that his suggestion is true, and that Christian reviewers stress again and again and again and again that Bauckham is only making suggestions, no more than that.

[Steven Carr]

What, do you think that Ben and I are the same person with the exact same views? Or that Bauckham's historical Jesus methodology is going to be of the same quality as his exegetical work on pseudepigrapha or early church fathers?

What methodology? Ad hoc assumptions, pulled out of his backside?

Crazy theories that Mark couldn't mention Lazarus without putting Lazarus's life in danger, while he mentioned Peter time and time again?

[David B]

On page 126 of this book, Richard Bauckham claims that the inclusion of Simon Peter's name at the beginning and end of Mark's Gospel form an 'inclusio' which signals that Mark was designating Peter as an eyewitness for the book.

Apart from the fact that John the Baptist, not Simon Peter , is the first person named, does Bauckham have anything to back up his seemingly absurd claim that inclusio = eyewitness testimony?

Did anybody in the first 3 centuries remark upon this 'inclusio = eyewitness testimony' feature of Mark's Gospel?

Did anybody ever teach that authors could use inclusio as a method of indicating eyewitness testimony, or warn that such a technique was not to be used?

Bauckham claims that this 'inclusio = eyewitness' techniqe might have been invented by Mark. Is this not a clear sign that Bauckham is resorting to ad hoc untestable , circular hypotheses? How does Bauckham know that an unprecedent narrative technique was invented by Mark?

Is not the whole thing preposterous?

And more importantly, un-evidenced?

I agree the evidence is pretty scant for his theory. For that matter, we don't even know if the post-16:8 ending included in most english translations is the one that was there originally.

But I think you're being a bit hard about Bauckham bringing up something unprecedented, or that it has to be corroborated by writings from the first 3 centuries. After all, how else could any new theory be made?

My bold.

Hy-bloody-pothesis!!!

David B

[Steven Carr]

Bauckham can hypothesise a literary device never heard of before in the annals of human history, and tell us how 3 Gospels used it.

Perhaps this literary device could be named after him. Sometimes the Gospels don't use similes or metaphors or hyperbole - they use Bauckhams , signals to readers that the entire book is based on eyewitness testimony if the last person named is the same as the first person named (excluding any people named before him)

Bauckham also demonstrates that the Prologue of John's Gospel has 496 syllables (no worries about the textual accuracy here....)

As we all know, 496 is a triangular number and a perfect number.

And the Epilogue has 496 words....

Come on people - wake up! What more proof do you need of the eyewitness nature of the work! Bauckham's 496 syllables is all the evidence any rational person could hope for.

As Bauckham explains, the Prologue is a poetic work where the number of syllables is important (think Japanese haiku here, I venture to add), while the Epilogue is a narrative work where the number of words is important.

But I suppose you are all too busy scoffing at the Bible Code to realise just how different Bauckham's work is from that.

That counted every 10th letter (or whatever)

But Bauckham is working with syllables and words, not letters.

So you can see how totally different Bauckham is from Drosnin, and why Bauckham is a Respected Biblical Scholar, not a crank.

[David B]

Just an aside, which might make a split, or sink into oblivion.

What do you guys make of the alleged reference to Shakespeare in Psalm 46?

http://www.fulmerford.com/strobe/reviews/shakes.html

David B (finds it much more plausible than other Bible Code stuff)

[JoeWallack]

Bauckham can hypothesise a literary device never heard of before in the annals of human history, and tell us how 3 Gospels used it.

Perhaps this literary device could be named after him. Sometimes the Gospels don't use similes or metaphors or hyperbole - they use Bauckhams , signals to readers that the entire book is based on eyewitness testimony if the last person named is the same as the first person named (excluding any people named before him)

Bauckham also demonstrates that the Prologue of John's Gospel has 496 syllables (no worries about the textual accuracy here....)

As we all know, 496 is a triangular number and a perfect number.

And the Epilogue has 496 words....

Come on people - wake up! What more proof do you need of the eyewitness nature of the work! Bauckham's 496 syllables is all the evidence any rational person could hope for.

As Bauckham explains, the Prologue is a poetic work where the number of syllables is important (think Japanese haiku here, I venture to add), while the Epilogue is a narrative work where the number of words is important.

But I suppose you are all too busy scoffing at the Bible Code to realise just how different Bauckham's work is from that.

That counted every 10th letter (or whatever)

But Bauckham is working with syllables and words, not letters.

So you can see how totally different Bauckham is from Drosnin, and why Bauckham is a Respected Biblical Scholar, not a crank.

JW:
You weren't this funny before you started reading my posts.

Fellow Truth-speaker, Paul Tobin, "The Tobinator", rips Bauckham a New Testament here:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papias.html

Per Tobin a key argument of Bauckham is that Papias gives credible testimony that Peter is the Source behind "Mark's" Gospel. Tobin gives the following reasons to doubt this Testimony is credible:

1) Eusebius concludes that Papias in general was an idiot based on reading all of what Papias wrote.

2) There are three extant examples of supposed Jesus' tales which Papias gave which are extremely far-fetched, even by Christian standards.

3) Papias' "living voice" claim isn't the evidence that Bauckham claims it is.

For anyone that has read Bauckham's book does he even deal with the fact that "Mark" is largely a discrediting of the supposed witness of Peter? "Mark" does indeed look like he intentionally makes Peter "the First and the Last" but with an intention that is the Opposite of what Bauckham claims. Indeed, we can see that in the Copying and Editing of "Mark" ("Matthew" and "Luke") this is exactly what has been done. The Copycatechisms have taken the Emphasis of Peter in "Mark" and Transitioned it from Bad witness to Good witness.

In other words "Mark" is obsessed with the Testimony of Peter, but rather than "Mark" being the Testimony of "Peter", "Mark" is Reaction to and Commentary on the witness of Peter.



Joseph

The Bauck Stops Here. - The Tobinator

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

[Toto]

Tobin credit's Neil Godfrey's blog. Bauckham archive (http://vridar.wordpress.com/tag/religion/book-reviews/bauckham/) By now it ought to be obvious I can only handle Bauckham in very small doses. Maybe it’s age. I used to love downing a whole bottle of whisky straight in very short shrift but have learned to cut it back to occasional nips if I want my brain and body to survive a bit longer. Maybe that’s a metaphor for my misspent youth in the coffin of religion, leaving me nowadays only ever able to spend occasional minutes at best engaging in silly (ir)rationalizations that pass as scholarly arguments for belief in miracles and semi-human miracle performers.

[JoeWallack]

So what evidence does Bauckham give for his claims?

Let me go on record here as affirming that Bauckham is a first-rate scholar. Did you read the chapters on Polycrates and Irenaeus? The chapters on Papias? Have you read his commentary on Jude and 2 Peter? His work on the Apocalypse of Peter or on the Testament of Moses? His range is excellent, his ideas innovative and provocative.

Last time you accused Bauckham, on this board, of spinning theories without evidence all one had to do was actually read Bauckham to discover that he explicitly, and repeatedly, called that aspect of his hypothesis a suggestion. It is not his fault that you cannot read. Nor is it his fault that you insist on trolling blogs that mention his name.

I do not have the book in front of me. Maybe somewhere in that chapter he wrote something that, unlike last time, insists the inclusio hypothesis is far more than a suggestion. I do not recall offhand. But what I do know is that, if he did, we would not hear about it from you.

You asked about his evidence. He gave Porphyry as evidence, attempting to uncover a broader pattern. I happen not to agree with his conclusions based on that very evidence. Apparently you do not agree either. That does not in any way mean that Bauckham is not a good scholar.

Ben.


JW:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ybOa_w8PCcQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark%27s+gospel+discredits+peter

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA179&lpg=PA155&sig=R94KE9cJo_SOZQNovjqgNeDtYTU&id=ybOa_w8PCcQC#PPA179,M1

"Conclusion

Mark's Gospel not only, by its use of the inclusio of eyewitness testimony, claims Peter as its main eyewitness source:"

JW:
And so Bauckham did write something far more than a suggestion regarding his inclusio Assertian. Your related accusation against Carr is also backwards.

Your point though Ben that even if Bauckham is a Truth-Challenged Advocate for Jesus regarding inclusio he still might have a valuable contribution to make somewhere else, is valid. Bauckham could still be a first-rate scholar by the standards of Christian Bible scholarship, just not by the Higher standards of Science.

Regarding Peter's Confession of Failure (Crying) Bauckham attributes a Traditional Christian Bible scholarship meaning to it which is not what "Mark" intended and misleads Christians like you:

"This personal story does not serve merely to denigrate Peter - whether as hostile criticism from some anti-Petrine faction or as self-denigration from Peter himself but actually qualifies Peter for his apostolic task, it is a story of personal transformation through failure, self-recognition and restoration"

"Mark" has a primary theme that Peter didn't and never understood the important part of Jesus' Mission, the Passion. Peter's crying gives no evidence that he finally understood Jesus' mission. All the crying does is confirm that Peter, the best Judge of Peter, recognized that he had Failed Jesus. Just as Jesus predicted. There is nothing at that point in the Gospel or subsequent that indicates Peter now understood Jesus and the Text indicates that Peter would not have even known that Jesus was resurrected.

That Peter is the source behind this Gospel and using it to persuade that he is the One who understood Jesus, is Comical. Again, Bauckham is using the real concern of Peter's witness by "Mark" and mis-presenting it as Peter's witness when it is actually the Opposite, Reaction to and commentary on Peter's witness. "Mark" has used the maximum literary device available to him to make this point, a crying Confession by Peter that he Failed Jesus - End of story.

While I think the Galilee reunion implications are Forged, even if they are original, there is still no indication that Peter understood the Passion and the likely meaning is that the Disciples would see Jesus in Galilee only because they would be in the same place at the same time and not because they were seeking him (remember, the Greek is Intransitive).

Let The Reader Understand.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page