Lamb of God #1

Two Mary’s

I’m not sure if the Fail Blog will take notice, but the gospel of Mark has a strong theme of disciple-fail. Is this simply a relic of the past or is disciple-fail a live option for modern disciples too?

What are the types and symptoms of disciple-fail in Mark? It is an illuminating topic to delve into.

The references below are drawn from John R. Donahue and Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Mark: Sacra Pagina.

…3:21, people were saying [of Yeshua], “He is beside himself.” Could the disciples have been included here?

…4:13-20, the different soils on which the seed [of Israel's resoration, see ch. 11 of Yeshua in Context] falls. Don’t we think the disciples are included in those who will fall away?

…4:40, “Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” Yeshua was impatient with the slow rate at which the disciples understood his identity. This would continue until AFTER the resurrection, by the way.

…5:31, the disciples laugh at Yeshua, “How can you ask who touched you?” They don’t grasp his manner of teaching and his patience to explain things to inquirers and those in need.

…6:50-52, their hearts were hardened after the feeding of the 5,000. They didn’t get who Yeshua was (hint: more than Messiah).

…7:18; 8:4; 8:16-21, “Are you without understanding?”

…8:33, Peter has rebuked Yeshua for saying the Son of Man must suffer (Peter thinks he will only rule). Yeshua says, “Get behind me, Satan!” Peter would teach the teacher, he is so sure of his scriptural understanding.

…9:32; 10:35-45, the disciples jockey for position and power. If you can’t see that this is a modern disciple-fail as well, what can you see?

…14:33-41, the disciples cannot stay awake at Gethsemane.

…14:50, when Yeshua is arrested, they flee.

…14:66-72, Peter’s denials.

…16:8, the women at the tomb told no one and were terrified.

A few observations: (1) God’s ways often are surprising and paradoxical while his people expect him to be conventional, (2) few grasp what true peace is, confusing the notion with the absence of suffering, (3) few understand the idea of nearness and Presence as peace, (4) insiders often have little patience with outsiders, (5) professing to know about humility and servanthood, religion is full of power-seekers and egoists, (6) future hope is lost and forgotten in the day to day trials of living, (7) truth is prioritized over sacrifice all too easily in religion.

I’ve had a number of “Beloved Disciple” articles here (see “The Beloved Disciple: Who is He?” and “The Beloved Disciple in Relation to Peter”).

Now, I’m summarizing Bauckham’s historical detective work following the trail leading to the identity of the Beloved Disciple. It’s a twisted trail sorting through evidence with a number of errors which require explanation. It’s fascinating to historically understand how simple the identification of the Beloved Disciple is and why the information has been obscured in ancient mistakes.

THE MIXED-UP STATEMENT OF POLYCRATES, c. 190 CE

THE WITNESS: Polycrates was the Bishop of Ephesus in Asia Minor writing to Victor of Rome around 190 CE about the Paschal Controversy (look up “Quartodecimanism” or “Easter Controversy” in wikipedia). Keep in mind the tradition that the fourth gospel was written by “John” (but which John) in Ephesus.

STATEMENT: “John too, who leant back on the Lord’s breast, who was a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher.”

LEANT BACK? The Beloved Disciple leaned on Yeshua’s breast at the Last Supper and Polycrates says the Beloved Disciple is none other than John, see John 13:25 and 21:20. But wait! Which John does he mean?

SACERDOTAL PLATE? In Greek, the πεταλον (petalon), which is the plate that has God’s name on it worn by the High Priest only. But wait! Was John, according to Polycrates, supposed to have been the High Priest? Major problem.

COULD POLYCRATES HAVE MEANT IT FIGURATIVELY? Not likely. There is a similar misnomer about James, the brother of Yeshua, who is said in Epiphanius, citing a passage in Eusebius quoting Hegesippus, to have been High Priest and to have worn the sacerdotal plate also. Bauckham explains how Epiphanius misunderstood Hegesippus and how this error possibly came to be. But it suggests that early Christians were susceptible to claims like High Priesthoods for apostolic figures.

COULD IT BE TRUE THAT JOHN WAS HIGH PRIEST? Several scholars have suggested it could actually be true and they use Acts 4:5-6 as a basis, “On the morrow their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.”

HOW DO WE EXPLAIN POLYCRATES’ MISTAKE? Bauckham points to another mistake made by Polycrates in the same passage. Speaking of Philip who came to live in Hierapolis, “Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who has fallen asleep in Hierapolis.” Polycrates is actually speaking of Philip the evangelist (Acts 6:5, throughout ch. 8; 21:8), and not Philip, one of the Twelve (Mk 3:18 and many other references in all four gospels). Bauckham explains that there was a trend in the early Christian writers to assume that characters with the same names were identical, which explains Polycrates’ mistake regarding Philip. Likewise, then, he might have assumed that the John in Acts 4:5-6 was the John the Beloved Disciple of the fourth gospel (and equated him with John, son of Zebedee as well.

THE NAME YOCHANAN (JOHN): Is the 5th most popular Palestinian Jewish name on record from the period of the New Testament (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 85).

ACTS 4:5-6 AS A FURTHER CLUE: The “John” in Acts 4:5-6 is not the son of Zebedee. We know this because John, son of Zebedee appears as a separate character there (vs. 13).

THE IDENTITY AT LAST!! Thus, the beloved disciple, as far as Polycrates is concerned, is not John, son of Zebedee, but another John. We know of another John, also a disciple, but not one of the Twelve, who, along with Aristion, resided in Ephesus and was an elder there. He is John the elder (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4) a.k.a. John of Ephesus.

In the Gospel of John, how do Peter and the Beloved Disciple compare and contrast? There is a definite theme running through the fourth gospel about this. In some verses it becomes rather obvious. For example, at the Last Supper table, you have to notice that Peter is not as close to Yeshua and has to whisper to the Beloved Disciple to get information about what Yeshua is saying.

What is the relationship between these two disciples? What does their relationship say about discipleship and the different personalities of disciples? Do they represent two contrasting, though both legitimate, ways of being a disciple?

You’ll find the Beloved Disciple in the following places: John 1:35-40; 13:23-26; 19:25-27; 19:35; 20:2-10; 21:2; 21:7; 21:20-24; and possibly 18:15-16.

You find out some things about Peter in the fourth gospel:
(1) He was a second-round disciple (see 1:35-42).
(2) He was not as close to Yeshua as the Beloved Disciple (13:23-26).
(3) He was slower at both running and understanding (20:1-10).
(4) He was more active, impulsive (21:7).
(5) He was not there in the dark time, but hiding (19:26-27, 35).

Meanwhile, the Beloved Disciple:
(1) Sought Yeshua out from the beginning (1:35-42).
(2) Was the closest to him (13:23-26).
(3) Ran faster and came to believe more quickly (20:1-10).
(4) Notices, observes, waits (21:7).
(5) Faces the dark times (19:26-27, 35).

Peter: speaks out, volunteers, claims loyalty, assumes leadership, one of the Twelve.

The Beloved Disciple: intimate with Yeshua, present in the dark times, scenes including him have more detail, he seems to take in more of the significance of the events rather than speaking or acting.

As Richard Bauckham says in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, the Beloved Disciple is the perceptive witness while Peter is the active disciple. It’s more than a little like the contrast between Martha and Mary.

And ultimately, both kinds of discipleship are affirmed. Peter may seem less favored, but in the end it is Peter who is given great leadership.

And, if Bauckham is right, the Beloved Disciple is the author of the Gospel of John. Furthermore, it is possible to identify the Beloved Disciple. Who is he? As I hinted before: not John the son of Zebedee (of the Twelve) and not Lazarus.

Meanwhile, we might think to ourselves about the balance we should find that fits our own personalities as disciples. How much of Peter (active disciple) do we possess and how much of the Beloved Disciple (perceptive witness)? Should we increase in one area or the other? How can we be of value to others as with our particular blend of the two styles of discipleship?

SERMON SERIES STARTER (a printable PDF file, 1 page): Peter & the Beloved Disciple

Who is this guy? Why is he so important (and I’m not talking Dan Brown material here!)?

This weekend (on June 5, 2011), I’m leading a seminar, “Eyewitnesses in the Gospels,” based on Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. I’m available to bring this 5-hour seminar to your group. The Beloved Disciple is one of many intriguing characters we need to get to know.

John 21:24 makes an authorship claim for the fourth gospel (one that contemporary scholarship largely rejects due, in my opinion, to some wrong directions taken by some excellent scholars such as Raymond Brown): This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

Bottom line: Bauckham makes a case, one supported by many strands of evidence though not a lock-tight case by any stretch of the imagination, that the Beloved Disciple is the author of the gospel of John (the whole thing, with no layers or Johannine schools).

What is the Beloved Disciple’s relation to Peter (literarily) in the gospel? Hint: they are two kinds of discipleship.

What is the identity of the Beloved Disciple? Hint: It isn’t Lazarus, as simple evidence can show, nor the John son of Zebedee who is one of the Twelve.

To find out more: get Bauckham’s book or schedule me to come and do a seminar. How’s that for a commercial?

Recently an archaeology blogger, for whom I have nothing but respect although he is a skeptic when it comes to matters of faith, made a comment on his blog about the gospels being unreliable. He said that we find a pattern in human discourse about major events. Years after the event, people make up apocryphal stories. They often put the stories in the mouth of authority figures to give them more credibility and the stories pass down as if they really happened and were witnessed by important people.

This, he said, is what the gospels represent. Maybe there are some genuine stories in there, but most are apocryphal and put into the mouths of earlier authority figures. The blogger recommended that people read the book by Bart Ehrman called Forged for more details. Ehrman says that many biblical writings were forgeries perpetrated in the name of others to establish credibility for their religious structure.

I thought about these statements and compared them with the research I have been doing for several years now and found a complete disconnect. While my views on the Bible have changed and while I do see that some things are not as simple as I once thought them to be, I’m not finding the gospels to be documents capable of forged stories and invented tales. On the contrary, I’m seeing more clearly a deliberate pattern of eyewitness testimony and oral history as a source.

Oral history, by the way, is very different from oral tradition. Oral history is direct, related by eyewitnesses. Oral history is Simon of Cyrene speaking in the early congregations, telling his story. Oral history is Peter, teaching gathered groups and relating his direct experience of Yeshua. Oral tradition is when stories are passed from teller to teller. Variations get introduced. Words get attributed to people who may not have been the actual origin.

The gospels were written down at the time the eyewitnesses were dying out. It seems the stories were written when the time for direct oral history was disappearing.

I also think about the importance of this topic for another reason. I care very much about people knowing the stories of Yeshua and joining the community of his followers. I represent this story to many Jewish and intermarried families. I care how Jewish people in particular see the life and identity of Yeshua. I also encounter many non-Jewish thinkers in my writing and correspondence. I read many points of view. It is important to me to advocate the Jesus-is-the-Messiah-of-Israel-and-the-Nations point of view.

I’m not a disinterested scholar. No scholars are actually disinterested anyway. I’m a Messianic Jewish rabbi and I think Yeshua’s story is the crux of meaning for the world.

I see faith eroding all over the place. People have new access to a broader spectrum of ideas. Critical scholarship is widely accessible. This should be a good thing. Yet, it has mostly been harmful for one very simple reason.

That reason is this: the people who represent faith tend not to read critical scholarship and the people who represent critical scholarship generally do not advocate faith. There is a lack of communication between the two.

It is my desire, then, to study the gospels and the life of Yeshua in order to communicate with people who may or may not read critical scholarship. I’ve given reading and study enough time to feel confident that critical study and faith in Yeshua are perfectly compatible.

One step in putting away false doubts about the reliability of the gospels is to address some of the evidence that they represent early written forms with sources in oral history. To say that another way: the gospels are the written record combining literary freedom with the oral reports of people who were there. There is no need to deny either the literary freedom the writers exercised or the oral history on which they largely based their accounts.

And in this podcast, I simply want to address the idea that Peter’s oral testimony stands largely behind the earliest gospel, Mark. But before I do, I am not saying that there are no exceptions to the oral history principle. The most famous example of something in the gospels that is not likely to be from oral history are the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Neither am I saying that the evangelists were mere recorders or claiming that all parts of their writing are equally close to the oral histories behind them.

But if I can convince someone that the essential basis of the gospels is direct testimony by people who were there, it would go a long way toward putting to rest all this doubt about the life and identity of Jesus, of Yeshua.

Amid the numerous books about the historical Jesus and the gospels, one that has become a particular focus for me is Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. On June 5, here in Atlanta, I am leading a seminar called “Eyewitnesses in the Gospels.” It is a seminar I’d like to give more than once and bring to other places as well.

In the seminar, we’ll examine topics including: the statements of Papias about the sources of the gospels, trends in named and unnamed characters in the gospels, the footprints of Peter in Mark, the footprints of the Beloved Disciple in John, and the meaning of the Yeshua who is revealed by testimony. The overall point is simple: the accounts in the gospels in many cases reflect early stories told by people who were there. They represent stories told in a community containing number of eyewitnesses. The possibility of fabricated stories about Yeshua is far less than many theories of gospel origins admit.

Or, to say it another way, the gospels are more reliable and more firmly grounded in the experiences related directly by people who had those experiences than many modern day authorities acknowledge. The stories about Yeshua are far more worth listening to than many people have been led to believe.

Consider for example the case that Richard Bauckham makes for the old theory, well-known to many readers of Mark, that Peter is largely the voice behind the stories in Mark. I will give a very short and in many ways inadequate summary of that case here. In the seminar, we’ll spend an hour on this issue and in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses you can read the thoroughly developed case.

Where did people first get the idea that Mark’s gospel is, in some way, shape, or form, relating stories originally sourced in Peter? They get that idea from a statement made by Papias, probably around the year 110 C.E., based on what Papias claims to have heard from the disciples of John the Elder, probably in 70’s or early 80’s of the first century. The statement of Papias is recorded in the writing of Eusebius in the fourth century and there are some problems with the statement.

The reason many people reject Papias’ statement outright is that Mark is clearly a literary gospel. Mark is clearly not simply the written account of oral teaching. There is too much literary artistry to take Mark as some sort of transcript.

But that is not what Papias said exactly in the first place and the idea of a literary gospel sourced in Peter’s oral teaching is worth investigating. Is there any evidence internal to Mark to back it up?

I’ll simply give three examples of that sort of internal evidence. These examples have behind them precedents in ancient biographies and are not simply literary theories based on thin air. Mark has done some things in his gospel comparable to what other biographers have done and fitting with theories of how history should be written as well. Skipping over all that complexity, here are three examples.

First, Mark goes out of his way to mention Peter by name first and last in his gospel. The two basic reasons that could explain this are either that Peter was so important in the early movement, he deserved special attention or it could be an indication by Mark that Peter is his main source. Many people have simply assumed that the importance of Peter in Mark is simply about Peter’s position in the early community. But Bauckham shows that the literary device which is now referred to as inclusio was used by ancient biographers in some cases to indicate their direct source.

Thus, we read in Mark 1:16, “And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.” Note that Simon, who is Peter, is mentioned by name first and that his name is oddly repeated when Andrew is named. Much more can be said about the oddity of naming Simon Peter first in light of John’s account in which Andrew knew Yeshua before Peter.

And we read in Mark 16:7, “ But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.” Note the odd naming of Peter even though telling the disciples would already include him. Mark has gone out of his way, in the next to last verse of the gospel, to name Peter.

Peter is named first and last among the disciples and major players in the gospels.

Now, let’s look at a second example and a different category of evidence. There is a curious feature that happens twenty-one times in Mark. It is a feature noted by many commentaries. Bauckham calls it the plural-to-singular literary device. Let me explain it by one example and suggest its possible origin.

In Mark 5:1-2, we read: “They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. And when he had come out of the boat, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit.” Note that they came across the sea and yet that the action resume with just he getting out of the boat. Who is the “they” and who is the “he”? The answer, obviously, is the group of disciples and Yeshua.

Why does Mark write the scenes this way? A theory worth considering is that Mark knew the stories as told by Peter who would describe them in a similar manner. Let me restate Mark 5:1-2 changing the they to a we to illustrate what I mean: “We came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. And when he had come out of the boat, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit.”

It makes sense that a person who was part of a group might relate a story in this way. And the plural-to-singular narrative pattern in Mark looks like a residual feature of stories originally told by one who was in the “we” of the story. In terms used in the study of narrative, this is a device for internal focalization, which I will explain more in depth at the seminar. It basically means a literary device that allows the reader to view the story from the viewpoint of a character or group of characters. The reader becomes part of Mark’s literary “they.”

Finally, and as our last specific example of literary footprints of Peter in Mark’s gospel, consider the stories in which Peter stands out as the main character. Again, this could be simply due to his importance in the later community. But it could also be because Mark and others knew the stories primarily from Peter’s point of view.

So, in Mark 9:5 we read one of many examples of Peter as the main actor among the disciples, “And Peter said to Yeshua, ‘Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.’” The compound result of these stories is that the reader thinks Peter is almost the only disciple who speaks. This fits well with the idea that the source of the stories is Peter.

In conclusion, there is internal evidence that Papias’ statement is basically true. Mark’s gospel does show signs of being heavily based on Peter’s telling.

The Passion narrative in Mark (probably chapters 11 and 14-16, says Bauckham) likely comes from an earlier written or oral source that Mark is using. Several characters in this section are oddly anonymous. They seem like the sort of people who would be named as eyewitnesses. These unusual anonymous persons include:

(1) The owner of a certain donkey in 11:1-6 (on the theory that the lending of the donkey was pre-arranged).
(2) Possibly the same man was the owner of the upper room for the Last Supper in 14:13-15.
(3) A certain woman who anointed Yeshua shortly before his arrest in 14:3-9.
(4) A disciple who cut off the ear of the servant of the High Priest in 14:47.
(5) A young man who fled and his linen sheet came off leaving him naked in 14:51-52.

The possible reasons that these characters are unnamed is interesting.

Gerd Theissen proposed in 1991 that the issue here is “protective anonymity.”

In other words, these people had done things which might get them arrested. A man who supplied a donkey and a banquet room to Yeshua and his disciples on the week of his death, a woman who publicly anointed Yeshua, a disciple who attacked the Temple personnel, and a young man who made a scene while fleeing might all be at risk.

If the Passion narrative was written or started circulating orally in the 40′s, the priesthood was still in the family of Annas and Caiphas until 42 CE. Pilate was removed by Rome in 37 as a failure. But danger from the chief priests continued at least until 42 and perhaps later.

Yet, some of the unnamed characters in Mark’s account are named in the much later account of John. By the time of John’s writing, the danger of arrest was over. Bauckham lists the phenomenon of unnamed Markan characters named in John:

the woman who anoints . . . . . . . . . Mary, sister of Martha (John 12:3)
the man who wield the sword . . . . . Simon Peter (John 18:10)
the servant of the High Priest . . . . . Malchus (John 18:10)

This leads Bauckham to another very interesting point: why is the story of Lazarus only told in John? This is a major puzzle and has led many to suggest the Lazarus story is invented completely by the author of John.

Perhaps it was thought too dangerous for Lazarus to write the story down in the early days.

What are some of the kinds of observations and questions that lead Richard Bauckham to the eyewitness theory of the formation of the gospels? The first is foundational to the whole theory:

(1) Why are some characters named and some unnamed in the gospels?

That question and a few other considerations lead to a chain of questions, which are behind and in support of the eyewitness theory.

(2) Why are some characters named in some gospels but unnamed in one or more parallels?

(3) Were there conventions in comparable historiographical writings concerning witnesses and naming them in accounts? (Bauckham discusses at length the use of inclusio as a convention).

(4) What do the names, patronymics, variant forms of names, nicknames, and so on in the gospels tell us when compared with our knowledge of Palestinian Jewish names?

(5) What internal evidence is there in the apostolic writings for the importance of eyewitnesses? (Bauckham discusses, for example, the phrase “witnesses from the beginning”).

(6) A common theory of gospel formation has been one of long “oral tradition.” Does the use of names in the gospels support the common theory? (There is a difference between “oral tradition” and “oral history”).

(7) Is there external evidence for the importance of eyewitnesses in gospel formation? (Hint: Papias).

But a comment in Markus Bockmuehl’s This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah caused me to go searching. He says, “One should resist the cliche that Jesus kept company only with the poor” (83). So I went searching to find among those who knew and loved him, those whom he knew and loved, some who were high and mighty.

Yeshua found monetary support among several well-to-do women. It seems that some of these were eyewitnesses whose testimony about Yeshua was known to the community after Yeshua. Among these is a woman whose husband was a steward in Herod Antipas’ household, a woman mentioned by name only once, Joanna (Luke 8:3). In the same list is a woman named Susanna, who must be well-to-do since she also provided support for Yeshua and the disciples. It is interesting that these are mentioned in Luke, the very gospel that emphasizes the poor and lowly.

And then there is Zacchaeus, who is an architelones, a chief tax collector, which means a very wealthy one (Luke 19:2).

Perhaps most famous of the high and mighty disciples of Yeshua is Joseph of Arimathea. But he wasn’t a disciple, some will object. I read not too long ago in some historical Jesus book that it is highly unlikely Joseph was a disciple. Of course, Matthew and John would both disagree: Joseph, who also was a disciple . . . Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Yeshua, but secretly (Matt 27:57; John 19:38).

And, yes, even Nicodemus. See John 7:50-52 and 19:39.

There was a certain centurion, a soldier of some power and influence, especially in a remote posting like Syria (as the Romans knew the region), who said, Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed (Matt 8:8; Luke 7:6). This is not the same centurion who, at the crucifixion, remarked in amazement that Yeshua was the Son of God (Mark 15:39).

Don’t forget also the woman with the issue of blood (as the King James has immortalized her in Mark 5:25). She had spent all her money on doctors who did not help her. So you might say she was not wealthy. But the point is, she was wealthy until she became destitute through her disability, and this well-to-do woman who lost everything found it again in Yeshua.

And we might mention Jairus in Mark 5:22, the leader of a synagogue, perhaps the one in Capernaum or a nearby town. The fact that he is a named character suggests that, after the resurrection, he too was a disciple, one who gave eyewitness testimony to the deeds of Yeshua.

There certainly may be more. The one who said, “Woe to you that are rich” (Luke 6:24), and “sell your possessions and give alms” (Luke 12:33), did not shun the rich or powerful. Nor should we take his words on this matter as absolute law. The teacher from Galilee had a way of speaking hyperbole that we recognize again and again.

Good thing. I’d guess that 100% of the people reading this are rich by history’s standards (if you don’t go hungry, if you can always afford at least some cheap bread or rice even in hard times, you are rich).

What were the top men’s names in Yeshua’s time? The top women’s names? How does this relate to the overall theory of named characters as eyewitnesses?

Statistics are fun. It might interest readers of the gospels to know that:

15.6% of men were either Simon or Joseph (Shimon or Yosef).
41.5% of men had one of the top nine names.
28.6% of women were either Mary (Mariam/Miriam) or Salome.
49.7% of women had one of the top nine names.

The main source for names in Yeshua’s time is (some may find this surprising) the names of the Hasmonean rulers and their family members (the Hasmoneans are the Maccabean conquerors and their descendants). Mariam and Salome were important women in the Hasmonean dynasty (Queen Salome Alexandra and Mariamne the Hasmonean, Herod’s first wife).

The name Yeshua (Jesus, a short form of Joshua that was common at the time rather than the longer Yehoshua) was the sixth most popular name. It was likely so popular for two reasons: it was theophoric (it had a prefix indicating the divine name) and the figure of Joshua as the conqueror of the land sat well in an age of messianic and revolutionary hopes (at least for a return to the glory days of Hasmonean sovereignty).

The top nine male names were:
1. Simon/Simeon
2. Joseph/Joses
3. Lazarus
4. Judas
5. John
6. Jesus (Yeshua)
7. Ananias
8. Jonathan
9. Matthew/Matthias

The top nine female names were:
1. Mary
2. Salome
3. Shelamzion (related to Salome)
4. Martha
5. Joanna
6. Sapphira
7. Berenice
8. Imma
9. Mara

The tricks for differentiating people (how to tell Simon from Simon, for example) included:
(1) Using variant forms of the name. For example, Yeshua’s brother Joses (Yoses) was known by this short form instead of Joseph (Yosef) to be differentiated from his father.
(2) Patronymic added (father’s name). For example, Levi bar (son of) Alpheus.
(3) Patronymic substituted. For example, Bartimaeus = bar (son of) Timaeus.
(4) Name of husband or son added. For example, Mary of Clopas.
(5) Nicknames added. For example, James (Jacob, Yakov) the Lesser or John the Baptist or Simon the Leper.
(6) Nickname substituted. For example, Cephas (Kefa) for Simon Peter.
(7) Place name added. For example, Judas Iscariot (man of Karyot) or Jesus the Nazarene.
(8) Place name substituted. Rare.
(9) Family name. Caiphas was Joseph bar Caiphas and Caiphas was not his father’s name, but perhaps a family nickname.
(10) A double name in two languages. For example, Simon Peter.
(11) Occupation. For example, Matthew the tax collector.

Reasons This Study Matters for the Eyewitnesses Theory of the Gospels
First, the names in the gospels correspond very well to the larger list of Palestinian Jewish names. Frequency is about the same for the top names.

Second, in the Diaspora the top Jewish names were quite different (Bauckham lists examples). The fact that the evangelists used names, even for minor characters, corresponding to Palestinian usage corroborates their validity.

Third, the manner in which individuals are differentiated un the gospels corresponds to the larger patterns in Palestinian Jewish names (again, corroborating authenticity).

Fourth, the popularity of names associated with Hasmoneans reinforces the notion that a revolutionary (messianic) spirit was in the air.

Fifth, as Bauckham shows in the following chapter on “The Twelve,” the naming conventions in the four lists of the core twelve disciples are carefully preserved and fit the patterns discussed above. Not only their primary names, but their more complete designations, are accurately passed down through the lists of the Twelve (Mk 3:16-19; Mt 10:2-4; Lk 6:13-16; Acts 1:13). (Also, Bauckham has a theory about the absence of a list of the Twelve in John.)

The burial of Yeshua is an early belief of his followers, cited, for example, in 1 Corinthians 15:4 as a longstanding tradition by the time of the 50’s when Paul wrote the letter. In recent times it has been claimed that Yeshua’s burial is a highly unlikely event, that criminals were generally refused burial or at most put in a shallow grave where carrion animals could disgrace the corpse. The burial of Yeshua has been the center of a number of rationalistic refutations of the resurrection: the body was lost in a shallow grave and the resurrection story resulted as a mistake, the body was moved by Joseph and the disciples could not find it, etc. Therefore, we are confronted with the question: is the burial of Yeshua realistic in light of Roman practices (and especially if Yeshua’s execution fit into the category of treason)?

Whenever we ask history questions, we need to think more deeply than usual about what history is and what to believe about it. Knowing “history” is neither as simple as many make it at face value nor as impossible as many make it.

History is story. Someone tells a story. We read the story. The story has some connection to events that were witnessed and reported. We cannot recover the Event, but only the Story. No Story could ever be a completely accurate rendering of the Event. What people often want to know is whether the Story is “true.”

I have said in Yeshua in Context that we should evaluate stories based on whether they are internally coherent and externally believable. There is no such thing as “certain knowledge” about events. But if a story is internally coherent and externally believable, we should grant the likelihood that the Event has some true correspondence to the Story.

In considering the believability of the burial story of Yeshua, I have used as my main sources Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2 and Craig Evan’s chapter, “The Silence of Burial,” in Evans and Wright’s Jesus, the Final Days. I would point to the following as indicators of the believability and coherence of Mark’s burial story:

(1) Certain believable tensions are evident in the Mark story: Joseph needs “courage” to approach Pilate about the matter, Joseph does not cooperate with the disciples who watch from a distance, women are the only witnesses with the men apparently afraid to show themselves, and Joseph is not described here as a disciple.

(2) There is a certain ambiguity about whether Joseph is a disciple or not and the theory that he was not a disciple, or at least openly, until after the resurrection, adds believability to the account. Matthew and John report him as a disciple, but Mark does not.

(3) Jewish piety demanded burial and the demand would be heightened by the sanctity of the feast. That burial of the dead is a matter of Jewish piety is confirmed in many sources, but especially in the book of Tobit. Tobit’s righteousness is described again and again in terms of his work to bury the dead. Corpses defiled the land in Jewish thought. No one would want Jerusalem defiled at Passover.

(4) While Pilate might have been reluctant to allow burial for one executed for treason, he had political pressure not to go against Jewish piety at a crowded festival and pressure from the fact that Joseph was a high-ranking official.

(5) The tendency in the gospels, as Richard Bauckham has shown, is to name characters only if they are famous or if they were known to the Yeshua-community personally. Joseph of Arimathea is named in all four gospels. Evangelists in many cases would not name a character even if he or she were known in other gospels. Bauckham has argued that the tendency was to name only characters whose eyewitness testimony was known to the evangelist first or second-hand.

(6) The so-called evidence that Rome would absolutely refuse burial to one executed for treason is overstated. Many examples involve the Jewish War, which is a different case. The Mark story demonstrates tension over this matter, since Joseph had to muster “courage” to request the body. And when a member of the Sanhedrin at a feast with numerous thousands of pilgrims in Jerusalem made a request related to Jewish piety, Pilate is not likely to refuse it.

(7) Against the argument that Yeshua would have been put in a shallow grave, which could possibly satisfy the requirement to remove the bodies and keep the land pure, is the piety of giving proper burial. A righteous man like Joseph would not likely have been satisfied with a shallow grave. It is possible that to a Sanhedrin member Yeshua did not deserve an honorable burial in the tomb of his choice. But piety would insist on a proper burial and not something that could expose the land to defilement through carrion animals.

(8) There are a number of reasons to think Joseph was not a disciple: (1) Pilate would be less likely to release the body to a disciple; (2) the women were not in cooperation with Joseph, but had to observe secretly; (3) there are reasons why a pious Jewish council member would bury Yeshua even if not a disciple; and (4) some texts such as Acts 13:29 speak of the “they” who took down Yeshua’s body; and (5) Mark, the earliest account, does not say Joseph was a disciple. Yet Matthew and John say he was a disciple. Also, the fact of Joseph being named suggests that the later Yeshua-community knew his testimony as a witness. A good scenario which handles all this evidence is that Joseph was not a disciple at the time, but became one after the resurrection. Thus, his request for the body would not have raised concerns from Pilate that the disciples would venerate the body or create a martyr.

In conclusion, then, the story, as presented in Mark, is coherent and believable. There was tension over whether a Roman ruler would allow a body to be buried when crucified on a charge related to treason. The one requesting burial had suitable motivation, was highly placed, and was not identified at that time as a disciple. The disciples (women) had to passively watch and note where the body was buried, not having any power to interfere.

Deciding whether to believe the Story of Yeshua’s burial is about a real Event is an important step in asking the bigger question: are the resurrection Stories of Yeshua about a real Event?

Hopefully most readers (and movie viewers) understand that the way you tell a story shapes the message. That is, the same events can be told by different storytellers and different morals and themes can be emphasized. Everyone reporting an event or telling a story must choose things like what to include and exclude, what order to tell it in, what parts to emphasize, and how to comment on the story beyond simple reporting.

The call of the first disciples is a perfect example of the difference the storytelling can make. You’d almost think Mark and the Fourth Gospel are telling of completely different events.

Mark and John have very different versions of the calling of the initial disciples. It is not that the two ways of telling the story cannot be harmonized (they can, in basic outline). It is, rather, that they give different backgrounds and make different points. In John, the initial call story is about evidence for the exalted identity of Yeshua. In Mark, the initial call story is about Yeshua’s dramatic authority and the model of disciples leaving all kinships and vocations to follow.

Most readers are more familiar with the story as told in Mark and followed in Matthew and Luke. It is about Yeshua coming to the Lake in Galilee and saying to Andrew and Simon, “Come with me and I will make you catchers of men.” He then goes to another place on the lake and says to James and John, sons of Zebedee, and calls them away from their boat.

Mark has just narrated the message of Yeshua that the kingdom of God is drawing near and people should repent and believe. Mark is just about to show Yeshua on a mission to heal and defeat demonic powers. The call of the disciples comes in between.

People in a synagogue are about to be astounded in Mark’s account by the strange authority with which Yeshua speaks. His authority forces demonic powers to listen. It drives out illness and disability. It declares the kingdom with certainty. This Yeshua knows and has miraculous authority to back up his knowledge.

So, when Yeshua says to a person, “Follow me,” it has an authority than cannot be denied. You can bet that Mark wants his contemporaries, the people in his time a generation after Yeshua, to know that authority.

I have argued elsewhere that Mark’s gospel presents Yeshua in a way that speaks both to the Jewish and Greco-Roman world. Mark’s thesis is in the first verse of his gospel: the beginning of the gospel of Messiah Yeshua, the Son of God. Roman emperors were referred to as sons of deity. To Jewish ears, Son of God suggested Davidic kingship quite possibly.

Mark is saying to his generation, “The actual Son of God calls you to expand your idea of vocation and kinship. Do not cling to your family and job. Serve the real king.”

The story in the Fourth Gospel is quite different. It starts during the career of John the Baptist. The Baptist bears witness to the identity of the True Light, that all might believe in him. The Baptist proclaims the Coming One who is much greater. The Baptist points to Yeshua and cries out that he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Then, in 1:35 and following, the Baptist points Yeshua out specifically to two disciples. One of them is Andrew. The other is not named. Some speculate that the other is John, son of Zebedee.

Andrew then goes to his brother, Simon also called Peter, and tells him about Yeshua. Andrew and Peter have a powerful encounter with Yeshua.

Next, Yeshua goes into Galilee and finds Philip. Philip is from the same small town as Andrew and Peter. All the personal relationships are connected. Then Philip finds Nathanael and the circle grows.

We find in the Fourth Gospel that the Baptist’s work was still going on in the early days of Yeshua’s work. The Baptist’s disciples worry that all the disciples are now going over to Yeshua. The Baptist explains that this is fitting, that he must decrease and the Coming One increase.

So, in the Fourth Gospel, the formation of Yeshua’s disciple group is an outgrowth of the work of John the Baptist. The prophetic movement of the Baptist is passing to a new and greater teacher. And the disciples who come to Yeshua have already learned from the Baptist who Yeshua is.

The Fourth Gospel emphasizes the exalted identity of Yeshua. Mark emphasizes the authority of Yeshua. The Fourth Gospel waxes long about the mysterious transcendence of the Son. The gospel of Mark shows rather than tells and shows Yeshua commanding illness and evil to flee.

So, in the Fourth Gospel, the disciples are drawn to Yeshua by what? They are drawn by their knowledge of who he is.

And in Mark, the disciples are drawn by what? They are drawn by his irresistible authority.

Now the two version can be basically reconciled. There are some difficulties to work out. When did Yeshua’s group start baptizing and how long did they continue? Did Yeshua’s movement start in Judea or Galilee? Reconciling the two accounts is not without problems.

But we can suggest that when Yeshua came to the Lake of Galilee, Andrew and Peter already knew Yeshua. They responded as they did because of who Yeshua was. But Mark did not wish to emphasize this aspect. He emphasized the equally valid perspective that Yeshua’s authoritative call persuaded them. The one who speaks and demons listen also calls people to lay aside their interests and join in the work.

Those of us who are predisposed, unlike historians and secular biblical scholars, to take the reporting in all four gospels as true stories, can see how they may be reconciled.

Yet even so, we can see how the same events can be made to serve different messages. And for those of us who accept both messages, we can see more than one reason to be disciples. We follow because we are persuaded Yeshua is the True Light who will conquer the darkness. And we follow because Yeshua is the One with all authority, who will dispel the forces of evil and suffering. Following him in the Fourth Gospel means knowing who he is and through him having union with God. Following him in Mark means joining in the work of defeating evil and suffering.

What are the types and symptoms of disciple-fail in Mark? It is an illuminating topic to delve into.

The references below are drawn from John R. Donahue and Daniel Harrington, The Gospel of Mark: Sacra Pagina.

…3:21, people were saying [of Yeshua], “He is beside himself.” Could the disciples have been included here?

…4:13-20, the different soils on which the seed [of Israel's resoration, see ch. 11 of Yeshua in Context] falls. Don’t we think the disciples are included in those who will fall away?

…4:40, “Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” Yeshua was impatient with the slow rate at which the disciples understood his identity. This would continue until AFTER the resurrection, by the way.

…5:31, the disciples laugh at Yeshua, “How can you ask who touched you?” They don’t grasp his manner of teaching and his patience to explain things to inquirers and those in need.

…6:50-52, their hearts were hardened after the feeding of the 5,000. They didn’t get who Yeshua was (hint: more than Messiah).

…7:18; 8:4; 8:16-21, “Are you without understanding?”

…8:33, Peter has rebuked Yeshua for saying the Son of Man must suffer (Peter thinks he will only rule). Yeshua says, “Get behind me, Satan!” Peter would teach the teacher, he is so sure of his scriptural understanding.

…9:32; 10:35-45, the disciples jockey for position and power. If you can’t see that this is a modern disciple-fail as well, what can you see?

…14:33-41, the disciples cannot stay awake at Gethsemane.

…14:50, when Yeshua is arrested, they flee.

…14:66-72, Peter’s denials.

…16:8, the women at the tomb told no one and were terrified.

A few observations: (1) God’s ways often are surprising and paradoxical while his people expect him to be conventional, (2) few grasp what true peace is, confusing the notion with the absence of suffering, (3) few understand the idea of nearness and Presence as peace, (4) insiders often have little patience with outsiders, (5) professing to know about humility and servanthood, religion is full of power-seekers and egoists, (6) future hope is lost and forgotten in the day to day trials of living, (7) truth is prioritized over sacrifice all too easily in religion.

This helpful way of looking at named characters in the gospels as all thanks to Richard Bauckham and his book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

Simon of Cyrene is interesting for several reasons. One of them is that Mark also names his sons, Alexander and Rufus (15:21), while Matthew (27:32) and Luke 23:26) do not. What could be the reason?

Another interesting feature of Mark’s naming of Simon (and Mark is the earliest gospel we have) is that Peter drops out as a character after 14:72 and the women at the cross aren’t in the story until 15:40. Simon of Cyrene is in 15:21 — right in between. It appears Simon of Cyrene, or perhaps his sons Alexander and Rufus, is the source for the story of Yeshua’s carrying the cross through the streets.

Notice that Luke 23:27-32, a story about some of Yeshua’s sayings along the road to Golgotha, is unique. Simon of Cyrene was a living witness. Where might Luke have gained this extra information? One possible source is Q (if you read literature about the gospels, you know about the hypothetical source of Yeshua-sayings known as Q). Another would be an interview with Simon. Luke says he interviewed the witnesses. Maybe he got more out of Simon that Mark did before him.

Why would Mark name Simon and his sons, Alexander and Rufus, whereas the other evangelists did not name the sons? Part of Bauckham’s theory is that evangelists only named people they knew or whose testimony they had heard. If the theory that Mark was in Rome has any merit, could it be that Alexander and Rufus were known in Rome? Just a guess. Maybe Mark did not interview Simon, but only his sons.

The case continues to add veracity to the historical realism of the gospels. Named characters, especially considering that they are rare, suggest known eyewitnesses in the Yeshua community. The evangelists do not appear to be inventing stories after all.

Why is only one of them named? And what else do we know about Cleopas? Here is where we get into some fascinating material from Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Cleopas is perhaps the most interesting case. And this evidence is the kind of simple, memorable material to silence skeptics who doubt completely that the story of Yeshua has a solid historical basis.

First, a few things we know about Cleopas:

(1) Cleopas is one of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:18).

(2) His wife is named Mary and she was at the cross (John 19:25, Clopas is a form of Cleopas and the name is rare).

(3) Cleopas was Yeshua’s uncle (Joseph’s brother) spoken of in Eusebius (citing Hegesippus) in Hist. Ecclus. 3.11; 4.22.

(4) Cleopas’ son, Simon, the cousin of Jacob (James) and Yeshua, was the leader who replaced Jacob (James) over the Jerusalem congregation.

But here is the most important thing: Cleopas is a perfect example of a trend in the gospels. The people who are named are treated so for a very important reason. The only consistent answer that explains why some are named and some are not (Baukham mounts his case with overwhelming evidence of detail) is that the named characters were known to the evangelists as eyewitnesses.

They lived and told their story of encountering Yeshua again and again. Cleopas is one example, a person of great importance in the Yeshua movement after the events the gospels narrate. He is a rare case of someone we know from later historical records as well.

And the fact that he is named and not the other disciple illustrates the truth. The only plausible reason the other disciple is not named is that Luke did not have a record of his story or that he was not generally known afterward as one of the eyewitnesses in the movement. But Cleopas, apparently, was.

Look for more on this theme under the categories “Disciples & Named Characters” and “Eyewitnesses.” See Richard Bauckham’s book for a full analysis, including charts of gospel names and variants.