Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • Calendar
    • Calendar
    • Events
  • Blog
  • Recording Archives
  • Resources
    • Bible Study - John's Gospel
    • Greek Tutorials
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Position Papers
  • Sandbox

Eyewitnesses Redux

12/9/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
12/9/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 18, The Jesus of Testimony." Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 472-508.

Bauckham concludes that the issue of eyewitness testimony, especially in the Fourth Gospel, which makes more significant theological claims than the Synoptics, possibly based on the credibility of its claims to having firsthand knowledge of events, remains essential (Bauckham 2006, 472). He goes on to assert that the element of testimony in the Gospels puts us into direct contact with the Jesus of history who is also the Christ in whom the early Chrsitians placed their faith (Bauckham 2006, 473).

Our notions of testimony may tend to view it all as if it would be used in a legal setting. However, Bauckham demonstrates that this is not the case. We routinely accept information based on formal or informal types of testimony (Bauckham 2006, 474). He also observes that modern views of epistmology have caused us to question testimony in ways which may be inappropriate. Current trends in philosophy lead to an individualistic interpretation, placing the recipient of the testimony as the sole arbiter of its reliability (Bauckham 2006, 476). We are not uncritical, but we must exercise some trust in the testimony presented.

The Gospels, according to Bauckham, are best considered broadly as a form of historiography (Bauckham 2006, 479). In that regard, they naturally rely on the integrity of the known eyewitness or eyewitnesses who provide the accounts. The reliability of witnesses was routinely taken into consideration by responsible authors (Bauckham 2006, 480). This is in contrast to a view of historiography found among many modern scholars, who consider authors in antiquity to be a rather credulous group of people. Bauckham criticizes this chronlogical snobbery in no uncertain terms (Bauckham 2006, 483). He goes so far as to point out the philosophical change fueled by these attitudes toward history. "As in other fields, Enlightenment individualism has led to postmodern skepticism" (Bauckham 2006, 486).

Bauckham re-visits Ricoeur's view of memory and its use in recording history (Bauckham 2006, 487). In this model, historical representations of events emerge after initial accounts and periods of reflection. The original testimony remains central to our conception of the events (Bauckham 2006, 488). At the same time, it is clear to Bauckham that historians do use sources selectively. They attempt to portray one version of events rather than all possible versions (Bauckham 2006, 490).

The way in which testimony is received remains a critical issue to Bauckham. He considers the ancient attachment of importance to "participant eyewitness testimony" to be a healthy balance to much of modern historians' dependence on non-witness sources (Bauckham 2006, 491). Bauckham considers the recent scholarly work with oral histories to be illustrative of the power of the eyewitness. Participants are able to engage with elements of events in ways which the historian and reader cannot (Bauckham 2006, 492). The testimonies of survivors of the Holocaust are a prime example of this powerful engagement. Bauckham transcribes one, observing that it shows aglimpse of a world which we could normally not imagine (Bauckham 2006, 494). The oral testimonies often show signs of very careful thought and even rehearsal. Yet they generally contain very few literary elements. Bauckham sees this as part of the source of their power (Bauckham 2006, 496).

In Bauckham's view, the events surrounding the history of Jesus are deeply and strikingly unique events. Though they are very different in nature from the Holocaust, they would provoke memories and eyewitness accounts which were similarly vivid (Bauckham 2006, 499). By their very nature, accounts of incredible events seem incredible. Primary eyewitness accounts, then, will be the mostreliable sources of information, even and especially when the events defy our understanding (Bauckham 2006, 501). The nature of the Gospels is to reflect just this type of eyewitness narratives.

Bauckham concludes, then, that the Gospels are best considered in the category of authoritative eyewitness testimony. This is what gives them their power and legitimates their claim to describe events which can be expected to seem unbelievable (Bauckham 2006, 505).

​
0 Comments

Polycrates and John

12/2/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
12/2/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 17, Polycrates and Irenaeus on John." Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 438-471.

Bauckham considers Polycrates of Ephesus as the second best source of information we have about the author of John's Gospel (Bauckham 2006, 438). His statement, quoted by Eusebius, to Bishop Victor of Rome, which is the only extant writing of Polycrates, defends the Asian practice of calculating the date of Easter. Polycrates lists a number of people, claiming them as relatives. He includes among them John the apostle, also identifying him as the one "who leaned back on the Lord's breast," thus being the Beloved Discipole from John 21:24 (Bauckham 2006, 442). Bauckham further takes Polycrates' reference to John as martys to indicate that Polycrates considered him to have borne witness as a prisoner at Patmos, thus being the author if Revelation as well (Bauckham 2006, 443). His argument, further, is that the chronology in John's Gospel is superior to that of the Synoptics, which could be taken to represent the death of Jesus as the day before the Passover (Bauckham 2006, 444).

Bauckham considers what Polycrates meant by his reference to John "wearing the high-priestly frontlet" (Bauckham 2006, 445). After a review of the priestly customs, including Josephus' description of the wearing of the high priestly crown, Bauckham concludes this is an unambiguous statement that John served as high priest in the temple at some point. He provides several possible theories, among them that the John from Acts 4:6 is the son of Annas, the Beloved Disciple, and also the one referred to as Theophilus (Bauckham 2006, 449-451). This would, of course, require him not to be the son of Zebedee (Bauckham 2006, 452). 

Irenaeus, cited in Eusebius, speaks of John the Evangelist in terms of the Beloved Disciple who leaned back on the breast of Jesus (Bauckham 2006, 454). Bauckham notes that Irenaeus, from Smyrna, was doubtless familiar with the views of the church in Ephesus, and that he had also learned from Polycarp before moving to Lyons, around 177 or 178. Bauckham observes that Irenaeus does tie his knowledge of Jesus to a chain of eyewitnesses - John to Polycarp to himself. The question of whether this John was the Son of Zebedee remains, however. Bauckham sums it up by saying, "What is revealing in itself is how difficult it is to find conclusive evidence one way or the other" (Bauckham 2006, 458).

Irenaeus does specifically refer to John the son of Zebedee five times, tying him "to his role in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts" and relating him closely with Peter and James (Bauckham 2006, 458). Bauckham does not find Irenaeus specifically equating the son of Zebedee with the Beloved Disciple. He further recognizes that early authors, including Irenaeus, will list people other than the Twelve as apostles (Bauckham 2006, 462).

Bauckham does find two apocryphal works which specifically identify the son of Zebedee as the author of the Gospel (Bauckham 2006, 463). The works are normally dated in the mid to late second century. Neither shows great familiarity with the traditions around Ephesus (Bauckham 2006, 464). Bauckham observes that Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria would serve as likely witnesses to the topic. However, their comments are not very hlepful (Bauckham 2006, 466-467). 

​
0 Comments

Son of Zebedee or Some Other John?

11/25/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
11/25/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 16, Papias on John." Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 412-437.

Bauckham clarifies what he has suggested in prior chapters, that the "Beloved Discipole" may well be seen as a disciple who is not one of the Twelve, not John the son of Zebedee (Bauckham 2006, 412). Bauckham does not go into great detail of his views. However, he notes that the Synoptic Gospels come from what is an authoritative tradition (Bauckham 2006, 4313). The Gospel of John does not list the Twelve and does not speak of the inner circle of Jesus' disciples, recognized in the Synoptics as Peter, James, and John. The cast of characters is rather different, suggesting a significantly different perspective (Bauckham 2006, 414).

It is important to Bauckham to seek an identity of the author because ot the historical fact that the Fourth Gospel was very early associated with the name of John (Bauckham 2006, 415). Yet the name John was very common in Palestine at the time when the Gospel would have first circulated. It is not immediately clear that John, son of Zebedee, is the person associated with the Gospel. Bauckham contends that the evidence ascribed to Papias, whose actual statements are not preserved, may well point to a different individual, "John the Elder" (Bauckham 2006, 416).

Papias' list of disciples introduces the first six "in the order in which these characters first appear in the Gospel of John" Bauckham 2006, 416).417). He does not identify the anonymous disciple from John 1:35-39 as John. He may, however, be identifying the two anonymous disciples as Aristion and John the Elder Bauckham 2006, 416).419). This suggests that John the Elder is not a son of Zebedee. The question remains whether John the son of Zebedee died at an early time or survived much longer than the other disciples Bauckham 2006, 416).420). Bauckham notes that Irenaeus refers to "elders" as "the generation of Asiatic Christian leaders who had not themselves been disciples of Jesus but had known those who were" Bauckham 2006, 416).421). If this is the case, it is quite possible that Papias would have used "John the Elder" as a means of distinguishing him from "John son of Zebedee."

Bauckham does consider it interesting that Papias created lists of disciples from the narrative in John's Gospel. This indicates a high regard for that particular Gospel account Bauckham 2006, 416).423). We do not have any specific statements about John's Gospel in Papias, but he does seem to make his comments on Matthew and Mark with a presupposition they are compared to something else, presumably John. Bauckham observes that there was an apparent difference of opinion between Papias and Eusebius, who endorsed Papias' idea that Revelation was written by "John the Elder" but did not quote Papias about the Gospel. Bauckham's suggestion is that Eusebius wanted to affirm the Gospel as written by (the reliable) "son of Zebedee" and Revelation by (the unreliable) "John the Elder" Bauckham 2006, 416).425).

The Muratorian Canon preserves some comments on John's Gospel. Bauckham finds it to say, as does Papias, that the order of events is carefully arranged and that it is an eyewitness account Bauckham 2006, 416).427). Bauckham considers this statement of the Muratorian Canon to be dependeont on Papias Bauckham 2006, 416).428). Of note is the statement that John was urged to write by "fellow disciples and bishops" including Andrew, "one of the apostles." Bauckham considers it significant that John is not denoted here as an apostle Bauckham 2006, 416).429). However, Papias rarely uses the word "apostle."

The question remains open. It is entirely possible that the son of Zebedee long outlived other apostles. It is also possible that some other John may have been the Beloved Disciple.

Bauckham adds an appendix to this chapter, discussing the possibility that Papias is Eusebius' source for Hist. Eccl. 3:24.5-13.  It is clear here that Eusebius is using some sort of source material, but Eusebius does not identify his source. He also does not make the distinction between source material and his own comments clear Bauckham 2006, 416).433). In any case, the idea of Eusebius' dependence on Papias for this is inconclusive and does not further our understanding of the nature of eyewitness testimony in any concrete manner Bauckham 2006, 416).436-437).

0 Comments

The Elusive Beloved Disciple

11/18/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
11/18/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 15, The Witness of the Beloved Disciple." Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 384-411.

Bauckham recalls for his readers the overall thrust of the book, that in the ancient world the most accepted historical writing was done by people who were personally involved in the events. This would explain the specific claims in the Fourth Gospel of the author as an authoritative eyewitness (Bauckham 2006, 385). Even as he reminds us of this fact, Bauckham is clear that the term "eyewitness" did not evoke the same ideas to a Greek audience as it does in English. The English almost always has legal connotations while the Greek does not (Bauckham 2006, 386). Though Bauckham does admit to a lawsuit metaphor in the Fourth Gospel, the Beloved Disciple is not on trial and is not at all the only one bearing testimony (Bauckham 2006, 387). Bauckham notes that in this respect Luke-Acts has a strong similarity to the Fourth Gospel. It is important that eyewitnesses be identified as a means of rightly preserving knowledge of the historic events (Bauckham 2006, 389).

Bauckham identifies the literary inclusio of the Beloved Disciple in some detail, finding subtle parallels between "the anonymous disciple in 1:35-40 and the Beloved Disciple in chapter 21" (Bauckham 2006, 391). Both passages feature two unnamed disciples and a move to follow Jesus, then one remaining with Jesus.

The Beloved Disciple plays a role in the Fourth Gospel, but appears relatively rarely, and is consistently referred to in the third person (Bauckham 2006, 393). Bauckham considers the third person references, typical in antiquity, as a means not of portraying objectivity but of avoiding distraction. A first person reference may make the reader want to identify with the author rather than with the events (Bauckham 2006, 394). The Beloved Disciple remains a figure clearly interested in the events and narrative. However, he does not appear to Bauckham as an "ideal" disciple (Bauckham 2006, 395). He does have a distinctive role, and, in some ways, is portrayed as superior to Peter. However, the detail that surfaces the most is his intimate knowledge and understanding of Jesus (Bauckham 2006, 397). Bauckham sums the distinction up by describing the difference between Peter and John. "The Beloved Disciple is better qualifeid to be the author of a Gospel, but he is not better qualified to be the chief undershepherd of Jesus' sheep, which is Peter's mode of discipleship" (Bauckham 2006, 400).

Though John's Gospel actually states the presence of the Beloved Disciple relatively few times, Bauckham considers that his presence was very common. It is not uncommon for writers of primarily eyewitness testimony to also describe events at which they were not present but for which they have reliable information (Bauckham 2006, 402).  Bauckham notes that the Fourth Gospel does not list the Twelve in the same way as the Synoptics. It also tends to focus on different named characters. This further solidifies the idea that it is the testimony of an eyewitness who is recording some different events than those in the Synoptic accounts (Bauckham 2006, 403). Furthermore, the assertions of seeing God's glory (1:14 etc.) suggest an understanding of who Jesus is and what he is doing (Bauckham 2006, 404).

Bauckham asks why the Fourth Gospel does not identify the Beloved Disciple as witness and author until the end of the Gospel. Bauckham observes that he may ntot have been one of the prominent members of the Twelve as listed in the Synoptics (Bauckham 2006, 407). There is no list of the Twelve in the Fourth Gospel. Bauckham next asks whether we can tell if the Fourth Gospel was actually written by the Beloved Disciple. He considers that the very fact that it claims to be written by someone relatively obscure is a strong argument in favor of authenticity (Bauckham 2006, 409). Further, the fact that the work is a relatively carefully polished work of historiography suggests the author was, in fact, an eyewitness to the events (Bauckham 2006, 410).

​
0 Comments

John's Gospel - Claims of Eyewitness Testimony

11/11/2020

1 Comment

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
11/11/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 14, The Gospel of John as Eyewitness Testimony” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 358-383.

The Gospel of John claims to be written by an eyewitness. Bauckham observes that most historical scholars understood the claim to say the text was written by “the disciple Jesus loved” (Bauckham 2006, 358). Recent scholarship has questioned this idea, saying it is possible that the word “to write” can also mean “cause to write.” Bauckham grants that the verg graphein can easily include dedication, but that the understanding is that the person who dictates also claims responsibility for the message (Bauckham 2006, 359). However, Bauckham illustrates the view being re-tooled to say that the claim of authorship in John 21:24-25 cannot mean more than that the “beloved disciple” had some spiritual connection with the ideas (Bauckham 2006, 360). He observes that this reinterpretation has no supporting evidence. Graphein is never clearly used for a more distant connection than that of dictating a text to a scribe (Bauckham 2006, 361). Bauckham goes on to say that “John 21:24 means that the Beloved Disciple composed the Gospel, whether or not he wielded the pen” (Bauckham 2006, 362).

The end of John’s Gospel has an interesting structure. Bauckham sees it as a purposeful construction, with 20:30-31 and 21:24-25 bracketing the text indicating it as an epilogue (Bauckham 2006, 364). This balances the prologue of 1:1-18. Bauckham further notes that the prologue contains 496 syllables, while the epilogue contains 496 words. He describes in brief the interest which the number 496 may have borne, then also observes the difference between syllables and words, “because the Prologue is a poetic composition whereas the Epilogue is a narrative” (Bauckham 2006, 365). Furthermore, he observes that 20:30-31 and 21:24-25 each consist of 43 words, which express parallel ideas. The conclusion as a whole also has two stages, which show parallelism in ideas. Bauckham takes this to indicate the difference between the temporal works described and the eschatological events yet to come, while still emphasizing the eyewitness nature of the Beloved Disciple and the ongoing presence of Christ (Bauckham 2006, 368).

Bauckham considers various interpretations of the word “we” where John 21:24 says, “we know” the testimony is true. Of all the possibilities, he considers the most likely to be a reference by the author to himself. The plural usage is explained by Bauckham. “Ancient writers of Greek seem to have slipped easily from first person plural to first person singular or vice versa when speaking of themselves” (Bauckham 2006, 370).

Bauckham goes on to describe the use of the first person plural to indicate authoritative testimony. In 1923 Adolf von Harnack identified the first person plural in John’s writings to be used as a claim to authority (Bauckham 2006, 371). This idea has been expanded by a few authors but has not been developed to a great extent. Bauckham identifies the different ways “we” can be used (other than to identify plurality), then he considers the usage in several Johannine passages. In sum, he finds that the “we” is normally substituted for “I” when the speaker is asserting the authoritative nature of his testimony (Bauckham 2006, 372-381 passim). Bauckham closes the chapter by observing that John’s quote of Isaiah 53:1 (John 12:38) uses the text, containing the first person plural, as a statement of authoritative testimony (Bauckham 2006, 383).

​
1 Comment

Memory, Recollection, and Reconstruction

11/4/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
11/4/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 13, Eyewitness Memory.” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 319-357.

In this chapter, Bauckham observes that psychological studies of memory have been very common, but that New Testament scholars have not made significant attempts to apply the data uncovered to biblical transmission (Bauckham 2006, 320). He sets up his analysis by providing an example of unreliable eyewitness testimony and one of very accurate testimony given of an event over seventy years earlier (Bauckham 2006, 320-323). The example of accurate testimony is identified by psychologists as “recollective memory” (Bauckham 2006, 321). Bauckham considers the narratives in the Gospels to fit generally into the same category of memory.

One of the challenges in studies of recollective memory is determining “whether a particular recollective memory is a copy of the original experience or a reconstruction of the original experience” (Bauckham 2006, 325). A copied memory would tend to be impervious to change, while a reconstructed one will be more fluid. Bauckham classes the false memories, in which we remember something that never happened, as coming from the reconstructive process (Bauckham 2006, 325). However, the situation becomes more complex when we realize that in memories as a copy of the original event, there is still an element of re-assembly to express the memory. There must be room for some variation in expressing memories (Bauckham 2006, 327). Memories may be distorted through substitution of similar details or through importation of details which did not occur (Bauckham 2006, 328). 

It is important to consider how reliable recollective memory actually is. Bauckham observes that some memories are recollected much better than others. Bauckham summarizes several categories of memories which are very likely to be recalled correctly. In brief, if we would donsider it memorable, it probably fits into one of these categories (Bauckham 2006, 331-334).

Central to recollection is the interpretive structure we use. “We are already structuring events, selecting and ordering, seeking coherence and meaning, when we experience and perceive the events, but even more so when we recall and recount them” (Bauckham 2006, 335). There seems to be a process in recollection of preserving details in a manner consistent with our overall understanding of the situation. Recollection bears with it an element of communication, with oneself and possibly with others. Therefore, the memories are arranged according to a sensible framework (Bauckham 2006, 337).

An essential element in the authority of eyewitness testimony in antiquity was the witnesses’ interpretation of the events. The participant understanding of thesituation was important because the eyewitness would grasp its importance. Bauckham notes that memory specialists consider meaning to be an important element instability or change of recollections (Bauckham 2006, 339)

The timing of events is also important to memory. “Those who recall the past really do intend to recall the past, not to create it to suit present needs and purposes. At the same time memories are recalled in order to be put to use in the present” (Bauckham 2006, 30). The current relevance and the past context of the memory are both important.

The Gospel accounts, as Bauckham observes, fit many of the criteria we would identify in regard to highly accurate memories (Bauckham 2006, 341). The events are unusual, often unique. They are full of distinctive features.  Many are of great consequence (Bauckham 2006, 342). The eyewitnesses were personally involved in the events. There are relatively few vivid or irrelevant details. This could serve to prevent elaboration of the narratives. The point of view may shift between that of a participant and that of an observer. This is consistent with the pattern of recollective memory (Bauckham 2006, 344). As we might expect, dating and chronology are not entirely precise. It is also possible, across the different Gospel accounts, to tell the difference between essential and inessential details (Bauckham 2006, 344-315). Finally, the accounts would certainly have been told and re-told. The rehearsal would stabilize the narrative quickly (Bauckham 2006, 345). Bauckham therefore concludes that the eyewitness testimony which led to the composition of the Gospels was very likely to be reliable (Bauckham 2006, 346).

Bauckham ocnsiders the mental frameworks used in construction of narratives, observing that form criticism assumed there would be no presence or involvement of eyewitness testimony after the very earliest time period (Bauckham 2006, 347). The Conclusion made by form critics was that the very elements expected by memory experts are present due to the absence of eyewitness accounts (Bauckham 2006, 348). In fact, the narrative style is entirely consistent with repeated story telling based on actual events, without intermediary written accounts.

Bauckham returns to the idea of fact and meaning, observing that recollected memories such as those in the Gospels, are linked with meanings. In the case of the Gospels, those meanings are fulfilled in the passion and resurrection narratives (Bauckham 2006, 352). The Gospel accounts make numerous statements about the disciples’ lack of understanding and their later realization of the importance of events (Bauckham 2006, 352). Bauckham finds it surprising that the Gospels have relatively little interpretive explanation. The interpretation was likely present, but in the preaching which accompanied the telling of the Gospel. Bauckham suggests, though not very specifically, that the absence of interpretations speaks against form criticism and its developmental view of narratives (Bauckham 2006, 354).

​
0 Comments

Tradition as Conservative of Content

10/28/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
10/28/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 12, Anonymous Tradition or Eyewitness Testimony?” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 290-318.

Bauckham, counter to James Dunn, sees the work of he community not as developing and elaborating tradition but as securing traditions as delivered to them (Bauckham 2006, 290). While there is such a thing as collective memory, it is routinely reined in by one or more authoritative individuals who preserve the content of the message. Even Dunn recognizes this as necessary, though he may undervalue its importance (Bauckham 2006, 291). Bauckham evaluates Dunn’s rhetoric pertaining to the role of apostles in preserving the Gospels, and finds Dunn lacking. Dunn considers the role of the eyewitnesses to be unimportant once their testimony has become part of a tradition (Bauckham 2006, 292). For the importance ofthe eyewitness testimony, Bauckham returns to Papias’ account, which is uninterested in community transmission but depdns on tradition with a known transmission history (Bauckham 2006, 294). Inrenaeus describes the authoritative nature of tradition of information in a manner similar to that of Papias. Knowing the chain of transmission is critical (Bauckham 2006, 295).

The importance of the eyewitnesses is further emphasized by the abundance of named witnesses to the events of the Gospel. Bauckham sees this as documentation of the important credible witnesses who could still make authoritative statements during the first century. 

With the emphasis on eyewitnesses in mind, Bauckham questions whether the Gospels were actually anonymous, as much 20th century scholarship has suggested (Bauckham 2006, 300). While the Gospels were not identified by statements that named the authors, there are many internal pieces of evidence which could certainly show the personality and identity of the author. Bauckham walks the reader through some ofthe trails of evidence. Bauckham also considers the titles attached to the Gospels by about the year 200 AD. It is important that all of the Gospels are known by their titles and by no other titles from an early time period (Bauckham 2006, 303).

Bauckham asserts very boldly that the tradition used for each Gospel was clearly known and that it could easily be guarded from additions and subtractions (Bauckham 2006, 305). The eyewitnesses would have acted to preserve and guarantee the accuracy of the messages. Bauckham sees this as an important function of 1 Corinthians 15 with its very specific identification of eyewitnesses (Bauckham 2006, 308).

While form criticism posits a community memory which is a creative body, Bauckham continues to see the Gospel accoutns as distinctly stable works based on the literary people who preserved the messages (Bauckham 2006, 311). Bauckham’s strongest contention here is that the Gospels are based on a brief period of oral transmission of events clearly known by the people who reported them (Bauckham 2006, 313).

​
0 Comments

Controlled Transmission

10/21/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
10/21/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 11, Transmitting the Jesus Traditions” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 264-289.

In this chapter, Bauckham begins to make a case for formal controlled transmission of the accounts of Jesus, eventually leading to the written Gospels (Bauckham 2006, 264). The apostle Paul used the very specific terminology for passing on of authoritative tradition as would be assumed in Hellenistic schools. The transmission process was understood to take a tradition from an authority and impart it to another person with certainty that the tradition was accurately received (Bauckham 2006, 265).

Bauckham suggests that in Paul’s time with Peter mentioned in Galatians 1:18, Paul became adequately acquainted with the Jesus traditions that he made a great number of allusions to them in his writing (Bauckham 2006, 267). Baucham also notes that Paul is able to distinguish between Jesus traditions and particular instruction intended to be consistent with Jesus’ will (Bauckham 2006, 268).

Paul’s teaching is not only received from the Lord, but it is also passed on to others. Bauckham observes that we are never told of an individual who received Paul’s teaching (Bauckham 2006, 269). The concept of transmission to a community also exists in Josephus. The whole community was to receive the teaching faithfully.

Bauckham had earlier observed that different traditions are often remembered in different ways. The early Christians were very motivated to recall the events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection as real historical facts, requiring very accurate transmission (Bauckham 2006, 272). The concern of Christians in the past to preserve historically accurate accounts has been demonstrated frequently. Bauckham particularly refers his readers to Graham Stanton and his 1974 book Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching, as well as The Past of Jesus in the Gospels by Eugene Zemcio (Bauckham 2006, 275). Both books build persuasive cases for a great deal of care for accuracy and the most appropriate wording possible in the New Testament writings. Particularly in Lemcio’s work, we reach the conclusion that the Gospels are, first and foremost, a form of biography (Bauckham 2006, 277).

Bauckham notes that the Gospels were preserved faithfully, in part, by being preserved in isolation rather than as a part of another work. The events of Jesus’ life were not conflated into ethical or theological teachings (Bauckham 2006, 278). This may well have served to protect the accounts of the events from corruption.

The issue of memorization in the transmission of the Gospels is of great importance. Much of learning in antiquity was directly associated with memorization (Bauckham 2006, 280). Bauckham reviews the way memorization, expansion, and contraction of material, and use of notes would have been common in rhetorical studies. He then applies the treatment of rhetorical forms to the preservation of the Gospels. Much of the teaching would be retained verbatim, while narrative of events would have more variation, yet preserving the essential information (Bauckham 2006, 284).

Bauckham does observe that there is open debate about the possibility of disciples writing down the events of Jesus’ ministry while they followed him around (Bauckham 2006, 287). He recognizes that writing was typically used as a supplement to oral transmission. Scholars typically kept private notebooks as an aid to their memory or organizational skills (Bauckham 2006, 288). For this reason, Bauckham considers it likely that some disciples would have made notes. However, these notes would almost certainly have been used to strengthen the oral history (Bauckham 2006, 289).

​
0 Comments

Oral Traditions Models Over Against Form Criticism

10/14/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
10/14/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 10, Models of Oral Tradition.” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 240-263.

Bauckham’s thesis has been that the written Gospels are not separated from the events they narrate by a very long or creative period of oral tradition. He does observe that this runs counter to the majority view of recent scholarship (Bauckham 2006, 240). Bauckham considers the three main scholarly views of oral tradition, questioning what happens when the accessible and authoritative eyewitnesses are put back into the picture of transmission (Bauckham 2006, 241).

Form criticism, which arose in the early 20th century and has largely been refuted, took the Synoptic Gospels to be an arrangement of individual, isolated incidents (Bauckham 2006, 242). Bauckham agrees that, at least in the case of Mark’s Gospel, the incidents were preserved orally and were not necessarily arranged historically as they are presented. Mark does seem arranged much the way a storyteller might spin a yarn, with some types of incidents grouped together (Bauckham 2006, 243). Form criticism did much more, though, identifying certain forms of narrative and relating them to circumstances and needs in the community. By doing so, it suggests that the real purpose of a Gospel is to tell about the community from which it came (Bauckham 2006, 244). The assumption couldthen develop that traditions were anonymous. They would be adapted freely, or invented. The purpose of retaining history was then lost (Bauckham 2006, 245). Bauckham discusses the ways in which many of the form-critical assumptions have been disputed and rejected. In essence, the disputes have been based on realizations about the fluidity of oral traditions over time and space. Oral traditions which are consistent, such as those used in the Gospels, normally preserve historical information (Bauckham 2006, 246). On the other hand, traditions which speak to a specific community’s needs are normally more fluid than those found in the Gospels (Bauckham 2006, 247). What we see in the Gospels is much more akin to narrative passed on through authoritative witnesses of the events, preserved in writing and speech, then codified in writing as an historical record of real events (Bauckham 2006, 248).

In the 1960s a Scandinavian alternative was developed, based on rabbinic tradition by which disciples would largely memorize the teaching of their masters (Bauckham 2006, 250). While this is an interesting concept, the methods do not seem to have been used prior to the sack of Jerusalem in 70. Aside from this difficulty, the Gospels do not show a great deal of word for word repetition in narratives. The model of orality is not reflected in the Gospel accounts (Bauckham 2006, 251).

In the 1990s Kenneth Bailey proposed three different models of oral transmission (Bauckham 2006, 252). In his conception, the Gospels are an example of traditions passed on from an authoritative teacher through recognized disciples, maintaining a formally structured content (Bauckham 2006, 253). This kind of verbatim tradition is found in modern usage by teachers who have memorized the Koran (Bauckham 2006, 254). Here, the community preserves the teaching very rigorously. Bauckham does not see this as a creative process. However, again, he does not see it fitting the form critics’ model or the differences observed in the Gospels.

The idea expressed by Bailey has been adopted by James Dunn and N.T. Wright. Both assume that the process of transmitting traditions through an informal but controlled method allows for the community to control the message, rather than the message being controlled by a specific storyteller (Bauckham 2006, 257). Bauckham considers that the model does not answer some important questions. The reason for control, the mechanics of control, and the relationship of stability and flexibility of the message remain unclear. It also remains to be shown that the Gospels show signs of this process (Bauckham 2006, 258).

Bauckham closes the chaper with a repetition and explication of his earlier critiques of Bailey’s view of eyewitnesses. Bauckham does not think Bailey treats the role of authoritative eyewitness testimony seriously enough (Bauckham 2006, 261). The concept of eyewitnesses reflected in Bailey’s work is not rigorous enough to explain the attention, citied in earlier chapters of Bauckham’s work, to named eyewitnesses (Bauckham 2006, 262).

​
0 Comments

What About Papias?

10/7/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
10/7/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 9, Papias on Mark and Matthew.” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 202-239.

Bauckham, observing that Eusebius was doubtful about some of Papias’ theological conclusions, finds that Eusebius did consider Papias as a reliable reporter when it came to the traditions of composition of the Gospels. Papias attributes statements about Mark to “the Elder,” whom Bauckham takes to be the apostle John (Bauckham 2006, 202). Papias’ claim is that Peter told the events included in Mark’s Gospel, and that Mark did minimal arranging, while Matthew, with no source cited by Papias, created an ordered account of the Gospel (Bauckham 2006, 203). Bauckham takes Papias’ report to be credible, in part because it cites John, then reinforces the claim with 1 Peter 5:13. It would have seemed more normal, if Papias were inventing something, to use a letter of Peter to show Peter’s influence on Mark (Bauckham 2006, 205).

Papias does introduce Mark as Peter’s “interpreter.” Bauckham considers the fact that Mark didn’t seem to explain what Peter wrote, but merely to transcribe it. He also notes that Peter, being from Bethsaida, would almost certainly have known Greek (Bauckham 2006, 205). However, it is quite possible that Mark’s Greek usage was more polished than Peter’s (Bauckham 2006, 206). Bauckham considers several possible implications of the word “interpreter” and concludes tha Mark acted as a transcriber and preserver of Peter’s teaching, and that he may have provided some editorial assistance as well (Bauckham 2006, 208). In this regard, he recognizes that the work of “interpreting” or “translating” in antiquity was often understood differently than it is today. 

One of the important issues in the scholarly community is, based on Papias, whether Mark wrote the thins he (Mark) recalled and which he (Mark) related from memory, or whether the “he” referred to Peter (Bauckham 2006, 211). Bauckham does consider that Papias intended us to see Peter as the source. He further finds it telling that while the word “related” is in the imperfect tense but the word “wrote” is in the aorist. This suggests the oral telling happened over time but the writing was at a certain point in time (Bauckham 2006, 212). Further, Justin Martyr referred to Mark’s Gospel as the memoirs of Peter. This suggests that it was written by Mark but had Peter as its source.

The term used by Papias for Peter’s teaching is chreia. Bauckham takes this as the technical rhetorical term, a concise account, rather than saying that Peter varied the teachings “as needed.” This leads Bauckham to conclude that Mark was writing the chunks of narrative down as Peter had provided them, as discrete and concise stories (Bauckham 2006, 215). 

Papias did not consider Mark to have invested in adding careful ordering to the Gospel. He takes Mark as a simple collection of Peter’s narratives. This is in sharp contrast to Papias’ view of good historical writing (Bauckham 2006, 218). Bauckham does observe that history and biography of the period tends to be more highly structured than does Mark’s Gospel. Bauckham thinks Papias was reacting to the non-chronological nature of Mark’s Gospel. This is a likely effect of Mark’s status. Since he was not an eyewitness, he may not have been able to make a clear chronological order (Bauckham 2006, 221).

Bauckham next compares Papias’ reaction to Mark, Matthew, and John. Citing Eusebius’ quotation, Bauckham observes that Papias considered Matthew to be orderly in nature (Bauckham 2006, 222). Bauckham takes the passage to suggest that Matthew wrote in Hebrew but that his work was variously translated. For Matthew and Mark, then, there were various stages of composition and a rather extensive editorial process (Bauckham 2006, 223). Papias’ conclusion about Matthew was that several translations into Greek existed, and that they bore significant alterations to the message (Bauckham 2006, 224).

Papias was apparently familiar with John’s Gospel. Bauckham observes that he uses a list of disciples which have strong parallels to John’s order. He also seemed to have preferred John’s ordering of events, considering that to be the correct chronology and the Synoptics to be less chronological in nature (Bauckham 2006, 226). Papias was of the opinion that while John was written by an eyewitness, Matthew and Mark had undergone intermediaries, so did not have the same proximity to their source (Bauckham 2006, 228).

Having considered Papias in detail, Bauckham asks whether Mark’s Gospel is actuall “not in order” (Bauckham 2006, 230). His conclusion, based on many features of the Gospel account, is that it is a clearly ordered work. While it is not as smoothly constructed as some works, it stil shows a great deal of careful arrangement. Bauckham notes that it is not as smooth a literary construction as John’s Gospel, but that this is likely related to the overall oral compositional style (Bauckham 2006, 233).

Mark’s Gospel was widely considered by the early Church as preaching. Even in the Gospel of Thomas, Matthew and Peter are used as representatives of the evangelists, suggesting that Peter, not Mark, was considered responsible for the content of a Gospel (Bauckham 2006, 236). Bauckham describes the many affirmations of Peter as the source for Mark’s Gospel in some detail. It is clearly a very early opinion, dating back to the beginning of the history of Mark’s Gospel.

​
0 Comments

The Purpose of Identification or Anonymity

9/30/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
9/30/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 8, Anonymous Persons in Mark’s Passion Narrative.” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 183-201.

Bauckham observes that it is highly likely that an orderly account of the events around the Passion was known to and used by Mark. This narrative is more dependent on the order of events than other portions of the Gospel (Bauckham 2006, 183). Citing Gerd Thiessen’s work with anonymous characters in the Passion account, Bauckham, who has already argued that most characters are anonymous, suggests that the anonymity in the passion narrative may be significant (Bauckham 2006, 184).

Anonymity in a Gospel account may serve a protective purpose. The person who struck the high priest’s servant at Gethsemane, cutting off an ear, may well be an example of this. If the identity were known, the disciple could be endangered (Bauckham 2006, 85). Likewise, the young man who fled naked could be held up to shame.

Mark also avoids identifying the high priest, though the other Evangelists do provide a name (Bauckham 2006, 186). Bauckham suggests that Mark may have been hesitant to use the name due to the power of that priestly household and their hostility toward Christianity.

Bauckham notes that Mark provides complete anonymity for those involved in getting the donkey for Jesus’ entry into the city and for those who brought the disciples to the place for the passover (Bauckham 2006, 187). Bauckham describes the oddity of both events and concludes they must have required prearrangement by Jesus.

The woman who anointed Jesus in Mark 14:3-9 is unnamed, peculiarly so, according to Bauckham (Bauckham 2006, 189). She appears abruptly, and there is no indication of her connection with anybody. Furthermore, the text says her act will be told “in remembrance of her.” Bauckham notes that if she is to be remembered along with the deed, it is surprising that she has no name (Bauckham 2006, 190). The likely explanation is that the woman may have been in danger if she were known as a participant in Jesus’ claim to be Messiah. 

Bauckham weighs the claims that the anointing would or would not be perceived as bearing messianic significance. While the anointing and the entry into Jerusalem can both bear such weight, Bauckham notes that Jesus identified this as an anointing for his burial. It is also presented by Mark sandwiched between the plot to arrest Jesus and Judas’ cooperation in that plot (Bauckham 2006, 192). It may be that the passage is significant of both the Messianic role and the death, as Jesus was put to death in hopes of stopping him from fulfilling a role as Messiah. Regardless, participants may have needed protection through anonymity.

Bauckham continues with the observation that a number of those anonymous in Mark are named in John. Rather than theorizing that names were invented over time, Bauckham sees this as a move which indicates the death, and therefore the safety, of those involved in the earlier, anonymous accounts (Bauckham 2006, 195). He further suggests that Lazarus, discussed in detail by John but absent from Mark, was another similar case (Bauckham 2006, 196). 

Bauckham returns at last to the naked youth who fled from Jesus’ arrest. He considers that it would be very unlikely that the narrative would have come from anyone other than the young man, but that he is anonymous (Bauckham 2006, 197). The scene could well be taken as an illustration that Jesus’ arrest created disorder and panic, with people escaping in any way they could. Bauckham does think it likely that this was Mark’s portrayal of himself (Bauckham 2006, 200).

​
0 Comments

Peter as a Character in Mark's Gospel

9/23/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
9/23/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 7, The Petrine Perspective in the Gospel of Mark.” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 155-182.

Bauckham, recalling his earlier discussion of the inclusio suggesting that Peter was the main source for material, asks if the text has other features which may reveal a Petrine perspective (Bauckham 2006, 155). Bauckham notes that much current scholarship has disputed Paipas’ testimony and is therefore unwilling to grant that he may have reached any correct conclusions. Therefore, the case deserves careful and unbiased investigation (Bauckham 2006, 156). As a foundation for his analysis, Bauckham uses a 1925 article by Cuthbert Turner which observes a plural verb describing “movements of Jesus and his disciples, followed immediately by a singular verb or pronoun referring to Jesus alone” (Bauckham 2006, 156, see C.H. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel V. The Movements of Jesus and His Disciples and the Crowd” JTS 26 (1925) 225-40).

In effect, Mark frequently uses a plural verb indicating the motion of a group. He then follows it immediately with a statement about Jesus doing something. In the passages with Synoptic parallels, Matthew and Luke do this rarely. The passages further tend to have variant readings in which the plurals are “corrected” (Bauckham 2006, 157). Turner takes this as an indication that Mark’s Gospel has elements of narrative testimony of an eyewitness preacher, while Matthew and Luke are more similar to accounts written as history (Bauckham 2006, 158). Particularly, in Mark 1:29, the use of “they” in the clause “they left the synagogue” is clumsy in context. However, if the word “we” were substituted, it would no longer seem clumsy and would seem very much like a story told by Peter, one of the participants in the actions (Bauckham 2006, 159). In many of Mark’s passages which use this feature, soe disciples including Peter are named, otherwise the passages seem to refer to the Twelve, without providing names.

Bauckham also observes that this grammatical feature is used deliberately by Mark. The first and last occurrences refer to Jesus moving with the Twelve. The first is almost immediately after the double reference to Peter in chapter one, and it is then used shortly afterward in references to Peter. The last use is followed by multiple references to Peter (Bauckham 2006, 162). Bauckham considers this narrative device to deliberately focus attention on Peter (Bauckham 2006, 163).

Because Bauckham has concluded that Mark intentionally focuses attention on Peter, he seeks to understand Peter’s role in Mark’s Gospel. To do so, Bauckham analyzes a number of passages in which Peter speaks or acts apparently as a representative of the disciples who are present. It is evident, however, that Peter’s speeches and the responses recorded do ot always apply equally to the group of disciples as a whole. For instance, in Gethsemane, when Jesus awakens Peter, James, and John, Peter is first and Jesus’ words seem closely related to Peter’s zeal expressed earlier and to Jesus’ prediction that Peter would deny him (Bauckham 2006, 166). Bauckham concludes that Mark’s Gospel normally portrays Peter as the disciple who speaks out, hoping he is the spokesman for the disciples but sometimes going astray. He is presented as showing individuality from within the group in a way none of the other disciples do (Bauckham 2006, 168). His failures are noteworthy, going beyond those of the other disciples. Yet Bauckham points out his restoration is also pictured as complete, even being foreshadowed by the angel in mark 16:7 (Bauckham 2006, 170).

Some scholars have noted that Mark’s Gospel has very little material which gives biographical information about Peter. We find out mostly about what Jesus says or does rather than about Peter. Bauckham considers this to be an indication of Mark’s purpose, as well as a suggestion that Peter considered Jesus’ role, rather than his own, to be of importance (Bauckham 2006, 172). Yet Peter is not without characterization in Mark. Peter shows initiative, self-confidence, and appears as a well-meaning but impulsive individual (Bauckham 2006, 175). Rather than portraying Peter in a negative light, Mark makes him a sympathetic character. Bauckham finds that Mark wants us to feel sorry for Peter when things go badly (Bauckham 2006, 176).

Bauckham concludes that Mark focuses our attention on Jesus as the subject of the Gospel and on Peter as the most important eyewitness source. He primarily tells the story from Peter’s perspective (Bauckham 2006, 179).

​
0 Comments

Textual Clues to Important Eyewitnesses

9/16/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
9/16/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 6, Eyewitnesses ‘from the Beginning.’” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 114-154.

Bauckham observes that the four canonical Gospels all have a similar scope in their accounts of the events of Jesus’ life. While Matthew and Luke include birth and infancy narratives, they are essentially set as prologues. The bulk of the narrative is from Jesus’ baptism through his ascension (Bauckham 2006, 114). In Acts chapter one, being present for that time period is considered essential to doing the work of an apostolic witness. In numerous other locations, Bauckham finds precisely the same parameters. In this chapter he evaluates the importance of eyewitnesses in various biblical and extrabiblical sources.

Luke’s Gospel opens with a statement that the sources he used were eyewitnesses, firsthand observers of the events (Bauckham 2006, 117). Bauckham notes that while most scholars consider this an introduction to an historical work, he finds that Lovejoy Alexander’s analysis of it as a preface for a technical treatise bears serious consideration. Other scholars have suggested the introduction is in the model of a work of historiography, but that Luke was not the caliber of writer that we know from other works (Bauckham 2006, 118). The phrase “from the beginning” is used in many works, not to indicate the beginning of time, but the beginning of the series of events to be narrated (Bauckham 2006, 119-120).

While Bauckham sees the claim of Luke to rely on eyewitness accounts, for some reason he does not consider the birth and childhood narratives to be part of this research involving eyewitnesses (Bauckham 2006, 121). This seems odd, as an eyewitness to the events, Mary, was available to Luke, so he certainly could have verified the events. However, Bauckham considers chapters 1-2 of Luke to be unrelated to his claim of eyewitness testimony.

Mark’s Gospel makes the matter of eyewitnesses prominent by his emphasis on the name of Simon (later called Peter) in 1:16. Bauckham sees the repetition of Simon’s name to be a way of making it particularly clear that this person was present from the start (Bauckham 2006, 124). Peter is again specifically identified as one of the witnesses to the resurrection, placing his name in a prominent position, showing him as a witness of Jesus from beginning to end (Bauckham 2006, 125). His name is used in Mark’s Gospel much more frequently than in the other Gospels (Bauckham 2006, 125-126). 

Bauckham notes that John also has an inclusio of eyewitnesses, as in chapter one Andrew, a disciple of John the Baptist, has an unnamed companion, then subsequently introduces his brother, not the unnamed companion, but Simon. “This figure of an anonymous disciple has often been thought to be the disciple John elsewhere calls ‘the disciple Jesus loved,’” referring to John himself (Bauckham 2006, 127). In John’s Gospel, this is the disciple who is also speaking at the end as a narrator. Again, the inclusio may be indicated by the parallel statements of Jesus (1:37) and Peter (21:20) turning to see someone following (Bauckham 2006, 128). Bauckham sees this as indicative of an overall thrust in the Fourth Gospel that John, the Beloved Disciple, is an authoritative eyewitness from beginning to end (Bauckham 2006, 129). 

Luke’s Gospel features a wide array of disciples, beyond the Twelve (Bauckham 2006, 129). Bauckham finds it significant that Luke itnroduces particular women as authoritative eyewitnesses. Specifically, rather than waiting until the resurrection account to mention women at the tomb, Luke introduces Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna in 8:2-3, then identifies them again in 24:6-7, when the angel reminds them of what Jesus taught them (Bauckham 2006, 130). By doing this, Luke describes these three women as eyewitnesses to the bulk of Jesus’ ministry (Bauckham 2006, 131). 

Bauckham observes that Matthew’s Gospel does not have the same kind of claims to eyewitness authorities as the other Gospels do (Bauckham 2006, 131-132). I would take some small issue with his conclusion by observing that Matthew’s introduction of Jesus as the fulfiller of prophecy and his conclusion with Jesus’ claim to have all authority suggest that Matthew is calling on God as the ultimate eyewitness. Of course as an eyewitness who could be visited and questioned, God does not follow the pattern of the witnesses in the other Gospels. Yet the pattern of the inclusio is certainly present.

Bauckham recognizes that the inclusio he describes may have been invented by the Evangelists, or at least might be rare in other period works due to the type of evidence used. However, he finds such a device in “the life of Alexander of Abonoteichus by Lucian of Samosata, in the second century” (Bauckham 2006, 132). Bauckham describes Alexander in brief, as he is not necessarily a well known figure.

Bauckham identifies Rutulianus, a former consul and a follower of Alexander as the source for much of Lucian’s information (Bauckham 2006, 135). Rutulianus is mentioned more times than anyone else (except Alexander) in the work. He is the first and last mentioned by name, though he is not an important character until about the middle of the book. Lucian’s use of the device in a parody suggests to Bauckham that it may have been used more regularly in serious works (Bauckham 2006, 137).

Bauckham also finds the inclusio in Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus, early in the 4th century. He observes this work was written about the same number of years after Plotinus’ death as Mark was after the death of Jesus (Bauckham 2006, 137). In this work, Plotinus and his disciples are introduced, as well as his works, leading to Porphyry’s listing of his writings in order (Bauckham 2006, 138). One of the disciples, Amelius, along with Porphyry himself, serves as an eyewitness of nearly the entirety of Plotinus’ career (Bauckham 2006, 139). Amelius is present from the outset of the work and is a prominent witness, though Porphyry states that he was not present at Plotinus’ death (Bauckham 2006, 140). Porphyry makes it clear that Amelius was with Plotinus for 24 years. This establishes him as the authoritative eyewitness. Amelius, as we would expect, is the last person named other than Plotinus, in the entire work (Bauckham 2006, 141).

Because Porphyry was known to be hostile to Christianity, some scholars have taken this work as an anti-gospel, with a philosopher who serves as the godlike figure (Bauckham 2006, 145). Bauckham therefore concludes that the use of the inclusio may have been part of Porphyry’s imitation of the form of a canonical Gospel.

​
0 Comments

Named People in Scripture

9/9/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
9/9/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 5, The Twelve.” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 93-113.

Bauckham reiterates his view that the named people in Scripture are important, and specifically that the named eyewitnesses were particularly important as they remained credible authorities throughout their lives (Bauckham 2006, 93). This normative attitude may have been eroded, especially by the developments of higher criticism. Though Bauckham considers the dogmatic assertion that the Twelve and no others were an authoritative ruling council to be excessive, he also sees a significant role given to this body appointed by Jesus (Bauckham 2006, 94). 

It is significant to Bauckham that the Twelve are listed in all three Synoptic Gospels, as well as in Acts (Bauckham 2006, 96). Despite their being listed, “no less than seven of these persons are never mentioned again or appear as individuals in the Gospels of Mark and Luke, while the same is true of six of them in Matthew” (Bauckham 2006, 96). Bauckham continues, “it could well be that the Twelve are listed as the official body of eyewitnesses who formulated and authorized the core collection of traditions in all three Synoptic Gospels. They are named, not as the authorities for this or that specific tradition, but as responsible for the overall shape of the story of Jesus and much of its content” (Bauckham 2006, 97).

There is some debate about inconsistencies in the lists. Bauckham observes that all are grouped in three sets of four, except that Acts omits Judas. All begin with Simon Peter, then have groups led by Philip and James son of Alphaeus. The order of persons within each group differs (Bauckham 2006, 97-98). The third group does present a problem in that Matthew and Mark list Thaddaeus, while Luke and Acts give us Judas, son of James (Bauckham 2006, 99). Bauckham suggests two solutions to the problem. First, Thaddaeus may have left the disciples and been replaced by James. Otherwise, Thaddaeus may have also bee ncalled James. The former is unlikely, but the latter is certainly plausible, as so many people had numerous names to use (Bauckham 2006, 99). Bauckham observes that additional epithets were frequently attached to the various apostles (Bauckham 2006, 101).

 Bauckham further notes that the epithets used of the Twelve in the New Testament “seem designed . . . to distinguish members of the Twelve from each other and so must have originated within the circle of the Twelve themselves” (Bauckham 2006, 102). Since there were wo Simons, two Jameses, and two Judases, this would have been very natural. Bauckham walks us through the different types of epithets generally used of the apostles. His conclusion is that rather than showing a careless attitude, the lists make it absolutely certain to the original readers precisely which individuals are being identified (Bauckham 2006, 108). Bauckham closes the chapter with observations about “Levi son of Alphaeus” and “Matthew” (Bauckham 2006, 108ff). He considers it very unlikely that these names refer to the same person. It is very rare for an Israelite to have two common Hebrew names (Bauckham 2006, 109). Rather, one name would be Hebrew and the other Greek, or some such variant on the theme.

​
0 Comments

Common Names in 1st Century Palestine

9/2/2020

2 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
9/2/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 4, Palestinian Jewish Names.” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 67-92.

Bauckham recognizes names of people in antiquity as a very important element in the process of entering into a study of the people. Recent studies have shown that given names in Palestine from 330 B.C. to 200 A.D. remained relatively stable (Bauckham 2006, 68). There were also rather few commonly used names.

Among the names which were not very popular, it is difficult to rank overall frequency. The small sample size and limitations of the data collected make the smaller figures less likely to be significant (Bauckham 2006, 71). Bauckham explains in some detail how his analysis of the data was carried on, breaking it down in several different ways. Of significance, he notes that names in Palestine were significantly different from those in the Diaspora. This suggests that the names used of Palestinians in the New Testament were not later accretions. The testimony seems to be from the place and time described (Bauckham 2006, 74).

Bauckham suggests that some names were very popular because of their identification with the Hasmonean dynasty, which had successfully asserted a Jewish state in the 2nd century B.C. (Bauckham 2006, 74). Some of the other popular names may well have been commonly used because they referred to God’s name, or because of their significant meaning (Bauckham 2006, 76). 

Bauckham observes an important effect of the small number of names. In Palestine, but not in the Diaspora, a name and a relative, city, or occupation would be joined so as to identify, for instance, which Simon was being spoken of (Bauckham 2006, 78). Bauckham illustrates these methods of distinguishing individuals using New Testament characters.

​
2 Comments

Use of Names in the Gospels

8/26/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
8/26/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 3, Names in the Gospel Traditions.” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 39-66.

Bauckham observes that in the Gospels some characters are not named but others are. He suggests “that many of these named characters were eyewitnesses who not only originated the traditions to which their names are attached but also continued to tell these stories as authoritative guarantors of their traditions” (Bauckham 2006, 39). It is no surprise that many public figures would be named, as they root the narrative in history (my observation, not Bauckham’s). However, it is a surprise that some people who, left unnamed, would have no negative effect on the narrative, are named. Bauckham asks why of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus one (Cleopas) is named, why Jairus’ name is used “in Mark and Luke, Bartimaeus in Mark, Lazarus in John” (Bauckham 2006, 40). 

Bauckham cites numerous others whose names are retained in some places and not in others. The retention of names is a challenge in oral tradition studies. Bauckham observes that some scholarship considers them to be added to stories over time while some scholarship thinks the names disappear over time (Bauckham 2006, 41). While this is a difficulty in scholarship, Bauckham notes the fact of multiple Gospel accounts suggests that the latter tendency is true. Characters are identified, if they are at all, by the same names in the Synoptic Gospels. In only one instance is a name changed (Matthew/Levi). A name may be dropped, but only once is a name added in a later account (Bauckham 2006, 42). Outside of the canonical Gospels, there is a tendency to give names not known elsewhere, but not until the fifth century and beyond (Bauckham 2006, 44). Bauckham notes that in this regard, Christian literature differs from Jewish literature, which felt free to apply names to characters (Bauckham 2006, 44).

Bauckham observes that many of the named characters in the Gospels would have been likely leaders in groups of Christians, especially around Jerusalem (Bauckham 2006, 46). However, the names may have dropped out when the personal eyewitness authority was not as important. This could be explained by duration of time or by distance, which would make the personal identity less important. As an example, Bauckham considers Cleopas from Luke 24. The unusual name is almost certainly the same as the Clopas whom Hegesippus identifies as the uncle of Jesus (Josph’s brother) (Bauckham 2006, 47). The name would make for more credible testimony than would an anonymous disciple, at least around Jerusalem for a time.

Bauckham also considers the women at the cross and the tomb to be important witnesses, therefore named (Bauckham 2006, 48). Some of the names are given, while others are not. The testimony of two or three witnesses was an important legal principle. Bauckham notes that the distinctions among the different Gospels and their specificity of the identities of particular witnesses should be seen as evidence of the careful composition of the accounts (Bauckham 2006, 48).

Simon of Cyrene, along with his named sons Alexander and Rufus, are also likely to be important characters. Mark describes him, not one of the twelve, as a principal witness in 15:21 (Bauckham 2006, 52). The best explanation for the inclusion of Alexander and Rufus is that they were known as witnesses who would give testimony.

Bauckham finally speaks of the recipients of Jesus’ healing, specifically Jaorus (whose daughter was healed), Bartimaeus, and Lazarus (Bauckham 2006, 53). He also includes several women and Simon the leper. The names are given in Mark but not in all the Synoptic Gospels. Their names are not uniformly reported in second century accounts, presumably because they were no longer living witnesses (Bauckham 2006, 54).

​
0 Comments

Papias and Eyewitnesses

8/19/2020

1 Comment

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
8/19/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 2, Papias on the Eyewitnesses.” Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 12-38.

Papias, in the first half of the second century, wrote a treatise in five books, which Bauckham considers would be of great value in answering questions about the origin of the Gospel accounts. Unfortunately, the fragments preserved in Eusebius do not accomplish much. Bauckham notes that Eusebius had a low opinion of Papias, so may have selected quotations to portray him in a bad light (Bauckham 2006, 12). Papias may well have known Philip the evangelist, introduced in Acts 6. He certainly knew some of Philip’s daughters, who were prophets (Acts 21:8-9) (Bauckham 2006, 13).

Bauckham finds Papias’ work important because he specifically speaks about the time he was gathering information about Jesus’ words and actions, particularly giving insight into the testimony as eyewitness reporting, not as reporting of a written or oral tradition (Bauckham 2006, 14). Bauckham quotes from the prologue to Papias’ Exposition, where he says specifically that his inquiries were focused on the actual statements of Jesus and the early eyewitnesses (Bauckham 2006, 15). It is important to Bauckham that the elders, their companions, and Jesus’ disciples were still, largely, living and present at the time of Papias’ inquiries. Most of the apostles were dead, so could not give testimony themselves, but at least “Aristion and John the Elder were still teaching” (Bauckham 2006, 17). We note that Aristion cannot be identified but Papias considers him a personal disciple of Jesus. Bauckham does consider it possible that Papias was born between 50 and 70, and wrote his work between 110 and 130. He would have been well positioned to hear from many of the eyewitnesses and from their followers, even while the witnesses were alive (Bauckham 2006, 19). Bauckham considers this to be a corrective to the higher scholarship which considers the apostolic voice to be dead by the time of the composition of the Gospels. After all, the Gospels were probably being written about at the same time that Papias was gathering his information (Bauckham 2006, 20).

Papias did prefer a “living and surviving voice” rather than information in books (Bauckham 2006, 21). Bauckham observes, however, that Papias had nothing against books. He was writing a book, and used written sources frequently. However, pursuit of oral sources was, at the time, considered a typical way of gathering authoritative information, as described by scientists and philosophers of the time (Bauckham 2006, 22). There is an emphasis not so much on the chain of transmission of an idea as on the authority and reliability of the witness who delivers the idea. For this analysis, Bauckham relies heavily on the work of L.A. Alexander (Bauckham 2006, 22-23). Citing additional authorities, Bauckham demonstrates that the primary attention in period scholarship was given to personal experience or to interviews with personal witnesses. Books were written so as to preserve the record of the witnesses (Bauckham 2006, 24). This was a matter of responsible historiography. For this reason, Bauckham sees Papias as simply following normal practices in research writing (Bauckham 2006, 25). The “living voice” which Papias seeks out is not a metaphoric voice of a lengthy oral tradition, but the literal voice of a living eyewitness, reporting information at first hand (Bauckham 2006, 27). Bauckham notes that the prologue of Luke’s Gospel refers to the same priority. Interviews with eyewitnesses were recognized as the best way to obtain reliable information to be passed down (Bauckham 2006, 30).

Bauckham considers the question of whether Papias was interested in oral tradition. Drawing on the work of J. Vansina, Bauckham distinguishes between oral tradition and oral history. In oral tradition the ideas are transmitted via word of mouth for multiple generations. Oral history is collected in regard to events during the speaker’s lifetime (Bauckham 2006, 31). Papias, work, then, is oral history, not a matter of oral tradition. It is likely that some of his information was a generation removed. For instance, Papias gathered information from disciples of living elders who had known the first generation disciples. But he also gathered information from disciples of some still living first generation disciples (Bauckham 2006, 32). Much of the reason for receiving reports from secondary sources was due to Papias’ location in Hierapolis, not in the same location as the primary sources. Bauckham also observes that oral tradition depends on collective, communal stories. Papias chose not to record the collective traditions in his community but rather to seek specific, eyewitness, oral history (Bauckham 2006, 34). 

​
1 Comment

How to Discover an Historical Jesus

8/12/2020

0 Comments

 
Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
8/12/20

Bauckham, Richard. “Chapter 1, From the Historical Jesus to the Jesus of Testimony.”  Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.” Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 1-11.

The quest for a “historical Jesus” has been in progress for about 200 years, resulting in many scholarly and popular books and articles. Baukham finds the quest to be flourishing, especially in North American scholarship (Bauckham 2006, 1). He does, however, note this quest is mostly undertaken by historians rather than theologians. This leads him to ask whether the Jesus who is an historical figure is the same as the one around whom Christianity is centered (Bauckham 2006, 2). Christianity has historically recognized Jesus as portrayed in the four canonical Gospels to be the very real person in whom Christianity is rooted. The conflict arises when historians take the Jesus of those Gospels as someone constructed by early Christians to meet perceived needs.

Bauckham sees a serious issue when historians approach  texts which have a long and credible reputation for reliability, such as the Gospels, and acts with an assumption of their inaccuracy (Bauckham 2006, 3). This results in widely varied (and unprovable) interpretations of the things described in them. At issue is the significance of Jesus’ person and actions. For this reason, Bauckham considers the best way to reach a solid understanding of Jesus is to work with the body of material in the Gospels, where we do find the bulk of the data about Jesus (Bauckham 2006, 4). 

Key to Bauckham’s approach is the idea that the Gospels are historiography based on eyewitness testimony (Bauckham 2006, 5). Accepting history as testimony requires a certain amount of weighing the credibility of the different witnesses. Yet is also allows the scholar to investigate the theological and interpretive claims made by the text, rather htan discarding them out of hand as something unrelated to facts.

Bauckham takes the Gospel accounts to be “much closer to the form in which the eyewitnesses told their stories or passed on their traditions than is commonly envisaged in current scholarship” (Bauckham 2006, 6). Hedoes not think there was a very long process of transmission and elaboration. This departs from the presuppositions of form criticism, which remain influential though the methods are not so widely used as they once were. On the contrary, Bauckham is conscious that the eyewitnesses of the events described in the Gospels continued to live, work, think and speak in their communities, some of them for decades, through the time when the Gospels were being written (Bauckham 2006, 7). The Gospels are more like contemporary testimony than like traditional folklore. They were not passed from generation to generation before being written (Bauckham 2006, 8). Finally, Bauckham observes that historiography of the period routinely favored eyewitness accounts and made no attempt to screen out the interpretations of the witnesses (Bauckham 2006, 9). The involvement of the witnesses was important as it allowed future readers to interpret the events well. 

​
0 Comments

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Chronicles
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2 Kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent 4
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Akagi 2016
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allegory
    Allitt-2010
    All Saints' Day
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Anaphora
    Anointing
    Anunciation
    Apollinaris Of Hierapolis
    Apostolical Constitutions
    Aristides Of Athens
    Aristotle
    Aryeh 2021
    Ascension Day
    Ash Wednesday
    Athenagoras Of Athens
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker 1993
    Balabanski 1997
    Bammel 1996
    Baptism
    Baptism Of Christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bardy 1938
    Baron 2019
    Baron & Maponya 2020
    Bauckham 1984
    Bauckham 2006
    Bauckham 2007
    Beale 1984
    Belief
    Belonging
    Ben-Amos 1999
    Betz 1996
    Biesenthal 1893
    Bigg 1904
    Bigg 1905
    Blogcation
    Blomberg 1984
    Boehme-2010
    Botha 1967
    Botha 1993
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler 1960
    Caneday 2017
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carr 2010
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Cerfaux 1959
    Chilton 1984
    Chrismation
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas Dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Cody 1995
    Colossians
    Conditions
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constanza-2013
    Cooper & Lioy 2018
    Costa 2021
    Court 1981
    Culley 1986
    Cyprian
    Daly 1978
    Daniel
    Danielou 1956
    Davids 1984
    Davis 1995
    DeHalleux 1996
    Dehandschutter 1995
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Divine Fellowship
    Dix 1933
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1984
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper-1996
    Draper-1997
    Draper-2000
    Draper-2006
    Dube 2016
    Due 2003
    Easter-2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter-3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter-4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter-5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter-6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter-7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter-day
    Easter-monday
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Easter-sunrise
    Easter-tuesday
    Easter-wednesday
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria2014
    Elman-1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Eve-of-the-circumcision-of-christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Experiential Reading
    Eybers 1975
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Farrell-1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser-1996
    Forde-2007
    Fraade-1999
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Garrow 2004
    Gender
    Genesis
    Gero 1977
    Gibbins 1935
    Gibbs 2006
    Glover-1958
    Goga & Popa 2019
    Gonzalez-2010
    Good-friday
    Gospels
    Grosvener-schaff-1885
    Grosvenor-1884
    Guardian-of-jesus
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Hagner 1984
    Harnack-1884
    Harris 1887
    Harris 1984
    Hearon 2004
    Hearon 2010
    Hebrews
    Heilmann 2018
    Henderson1992
    Henderson-1992
    Henderson 1995
    Hezser 2010
    History
    Hoffman-1986
    Holy Cross Day
    Holy-innocents
    Holy-saturday
    Horsley 2010
    Hosea
    Hutchens2013
    Hymes-1994
    Ignatius Of Antioch
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    Jaffee-1999
    James
    James Of Jerusalem
    James The Elder
    Jefford 1989
    Jefford 1995
    Jeffreys-1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Jones & Mirecki 1995
    Joseph
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Jungmann-1959
    Justin Martyr
    Kelber-1987
    Kelber-1995
    Kelber 2002
    Kelber 2010
    Kelber & Sanders 2010
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Kloppenborg 1979
    Kloppenborg 1995
    Koch2010
    Kok 2015
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lake 1905
    Lamentations
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-c
    LaVerdiere 1996
    Layton 1968
    Lectionary
    Lent-1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent-2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent-3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent-4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent-5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Lincoln-1885
    Lindemann 1997
    Literary Character
    Liturgy
    Livesey 2012
    Long-2009
    Lord-1986
    Lord-1987
    Lord's Prayer
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Maccoull-1999
    Maier 1984
    Malachi
    Manuscripts
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Martyrdom Of John The Baptist
    Martyrs
    Mary Magdalene
    Mary Mother Of Our Lord
    Mason-1998
    Massaux 1993 (1950)
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza 1995
    Mazza-1996
    Mazza 1999
    Mbamalu 2014
    McDonald 1980
    McDonnell & Montague 1991
    McKean 2003
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Middleton 1935
    Milavec 1995
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec2012
    Miller 2019
    Missional
    Mitch-2010
    Mitchell 1995
    Molina-evers-1998
    Monday-in-holy-week
    Montenyohl-1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller-2006
    Muilenburg 1929
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Neufeld-1999
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Niditch-1995
    Niditch 2003
    Niebuhr 1956
    Niederwimmer-1982
    Niederwimmer 1995
    Niederwimmer-1996
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Olsen-1986
    Ong-1987
    Ong-1988
    Ong-1995
    Oralit
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Pardee 1995
    Parks-1986
    Passionb
    Patterson 1995
    Pearce-1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost-16c
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Pentecost Eve
    Pentecost Monday
    Pentecost Sunday
    Pentecost Tuesday
    Petersen 1994
    Peterson2010
    Peterson-2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Picirilli 1988
    Pick 1908
    Pieper1924
    Pieper 1924
    Pieper 1968
    Piper 1947
    Powell 2000
    Prayer
    Preaching
    Presentation Of Our Lord
    Proctor 2019
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Psalms
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Rabbinic Character
    Real Presence
    Receptivity
    Reed 1995
    Reformation
    Reformation Day
    Reinhartz 2018
    Resurrection
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Rhoads 2010
    Richardson & Gooch 1984
    Riggs 1995
    Ritual Meal
    Romans
    Rordorf 1996
    Rosenberg 1986
    Rosenberg 1987
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Russo 1994
    Ruth
    Sacrament
    Sacrifice
    Saenger 1999
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sale 1996
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 1886
    Schaff 1888
    Schaff 1889
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Schwarz 2005
    Scriptural Usage
    Seeliger 1996
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Simon And Jude
    Smith-2009
    Smith 2018
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    St. Andrew
    Stark 1997
    St. Barnabas
    St. Bartholomew
    St. John
    St. John The Baptist
    St Luke
    St Mark
    St Matthew
    St. Matthias
    St Michael And All Angels
    St. Paul
    St. Peter And Paul
    St Philip And St James
    Strawbridge 2017
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    St. Titus
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Tatian
    Taylor 1888
    TDNT
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Tertullian
    Textual Comparison
    Textual Integrity
    Theophilos 2018
    Theophilus Of Antioch
    Thielman-2010
    Thursday In Holy Week
    Timothy
    Titus
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity 1
    Trinity 10
    Trinity 11
    Trinity 12
    Trinity 13
    Trinity 14
    Trinity 15
    Trinity 16
    Trinity 17
    Trinity 18
    Trinity 19
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 20
    Trinity 21
    Trinity 22
    Trinity 23
    Trinity 3
    Trinity 4
    Trinity 5
    Trinity 6
    Trinity 7
    Trinity 8
    Trinity 9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity Sunday
    Tsang 2009
    Tuckett
    Tuesday In Holy Week
    Tuilier 1995
    Twelftree 1984
    Two Ways
    Ty 19
    Van Der Merwe 2017
    Van Der Merwe 2019
    Van Der Watt 2008
    Van De Sandt 2002
    Van De Sandt 2007
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Van De Sandt & Flusser 2002
    Van Deventer 2021
    Varner 2005
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Vikis-Freibergs 1997
    Visitation
    Voobus 1968
    Voobus 1969
    Warfield 1886
    Wasson & Toelken 1998
    Wednesday In Holy Week
    Wenham 1984
    Wenham 1992
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Wolmarans 2005
    Wright 1984
    Young 2011
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly