Lamb of God #2

Lamb of God #1

Two Mary’s

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.

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 330) famously quotes Papias (c. 110) regarding some background to Mark and Matthew. Note that Papias is not correct simply because his comments are old, closer to the time the evangelists wrote. There are many ambiguities in what Papias says and Bauckham critically evaluates the statements rather than talking them as gospel. The main issues include:
(1) How can Mark’s gospel be from eyewitness testimony (Peter’s) and be so different from another eyewitness source (the fourth gospel, thought by Bauckham to be the work of John the elder)?
(2) In what way can we make sense of and find support for the idea that Peter is largely behind Mark’s gospel?
(3) How can we explain the refined literary features in Mark (which likely developed through writing and not orally) if it is simply a record of Peter’s oral teaching?
(4) What does the “Hebrew” compilation of sayings said by Papias to be recorded by Matthew have to do with our Greek gospel of Matthew?
(5) Is Papias saying something implicitly about John’s gospel?
(6) Do we see signs that Eusebius disagreed with Papias, used him only selectively, and further confused us by omitting content from Papias that would have made the saying far easier to understand?

It’s all a bit complicated to say the least. Bauckham’s evaluation is a workable theory. I will cite the words of Papias as they occur in Eusebius and as they appear in translation in Bauckham’s book:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he [Peter?] recalled from memory — though not in an ordered form — of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he [Mark] neither heard the Lord not accompanied him, but later, as I said, [he heard and accompanied] Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreia, but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he [Peter] related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything. . . .

. . . Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.

DEFINITIONS:
Chreia – Short units about a persons words and deeds. In Greek rhetoric, the chreia form was a basic unit of biographical or historical writing. A comparable term might be “literary anecdote.”
Logia – Sayings.

Bauckham’s theory about all of this is very workable (my summary may not accurately reflect Bauckham’s thoughts at every point, but I did try in the list below not to diverge much from what he actually says):

(1) Eusebius did not agree with Papias about Mark lacking order, but wanted only to quote Papias as evidence that Mark is based on Peter’s eyewitness accounts.

(2) Papias was substantially wrong about Mark lacking order and being nothing more than a written account of Peter’s oral teaching.

(3) Papias had second-hand contact with the teaching of John the Elder (as Papias claims in another citation).

(4) Papias regarded John the Elder, a disciple of Yeshua though not mentioned in the gospels, as the author of the fourth gospel, the Gospel of John (as does Bauckham).

(5) Papias preferred the way John is written (because of (6) below) and sought to explain how the order in John is so different than in Mark.

(6) John (the fourth gospel) more closely follows some features of refined style for biographies than Mark and gives his account a careful and seamless chronological framework.

(7) Papias was aware that the Greek Matthew used in his church was substantially different than some other “Matthews” floating around (The Gospel of the Nazarenes and The Gospel of the Ebionites) and seeks to explain the differences.

(8) It is unclear how Papias viewed the relationship of the alleged Hebrew Matthew (which we do not possess) to the Greek Matthew (theories are legion but we really know nothing about a Hebrew Matthew except that the Matthew we all know is not translated from a Hebrew original).

(9) The Greek Matthew is easily explained as a gospel by an unknown author who used Mark as a source and had other material at his disposal as well (if the author of Matthew were the apostle Matthew we would have to wonder why he follows Mark rather than giving his own account).

(10) Although Papias may have been wrong about Mark being simply a written version of Peter’s teaching, there is a basis with substantial evidence for a more general claim: that Peter’s teaching is a major source for Mark.

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?

Many who have written on the resurrection stories and considered whether they describe a real event in history have made a simple point: women’s testimony was not considered valid or desirable in ancient courts. The evidence for this point is not lock-tight, but it is probably true that female testimony had less value to men in power.

Yet, all four evangelists bring up the women who were at the cross and the tomb. Why?

And why are some named and others unnamed?

Furthermore, there is one gospel in which women play a larger role than in the others. That is the gospel of Luke. Why does Luke name so many women and show more deeply than the other evangelists how early and how deeply the women were involved?

What is a woman reading the gospels to think about all this? Was Yeshua forward thinking about women’s roles? Were the disciples as forward thinking as Yeshua?

And what does all this say about the likelihood of the resurrection stories being true reporting of eyewitness testimony about events that really happened?

Richard Bauckham’s Theory of Named Eyewitnesses
In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham makes the case that the evangelists tend to name their sources. He meticulously records examples of some characters being named in some gospels but not others. He considers variation in names between gospels and considers other theories. His case, overall, is overwhelming. See other examples of this phenomenon: Cleopas, Why You Should Know Him and Simon of Cyrene, Why You Should Know Him.

Specifically, Bauckham says the evangelists had a tendency only to name those whose testimony was known to them first or secondhand. And the use of names indicates that eyewitnesses played a prominent role in the first generation of Yeshua’s community. The phenomenon of unnamed characters, even for example in a story Matthew or Luke relate which they found in Mark, suggests that there was an ideal of historical integrity. The evangelists were not content to name characters simply because Mark had named them in his gospel. The theory which best fits the facts is that they named only those who testimony was personally known to them by word of mouth (either from the source directly or someone who could report having personally heard the source).

The women at the cross and tomb are a good example of the remarkable variation in named and unnamed characters:

AT THE CROSS
MARK…………………MATTHEW…………………LUKE……………………..JOHN
Magdalene………….Magdalene………………………………………………Magdalene
Mary mother ………Mary mother……………………………………………
of James & Joses of James & Joseph
Salome………………………………………………………………………………
………………………..Mother of Zebedees…………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………….Mary mother of Yeshua
……………………………………………………………………………………….Mary’s sister
……………………………………………………………………………………….Mary wife of Clopas

AT THE BURIAL
MARK…………………..MATTHEW………………..LUKE……………………JOHN
Magdalene……………Magdalene……………………………………………
…………………………..other Mary…………………………………………..
Mary mother of…………………………………………………………………
Joses

AT THE TOMB
MARK…………………..MATTHEW………………….LUKE………………….JOHN
Magdalene……………Magdalene…………………Magdalene………….Magdalene
………………………….other Mary……………………………………………
Salome……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………Joanna………………
Mary mother of………………………………………Mary mother of…..
James James

Observations
Bauckham thinks that in providing well-sourced history according to Jewish and Greco-Roman conventions of the time, the evangelists tended to provide two or three witnesses for the cross, burial, and empty tomb (even John lists other witnesses such as Peter and the beloved disciple).

Joanna is an interesting case with regard to Luke. In his prologue, Luke speaks of researching his account and using eyewitnesses. Was Joanna one of Luke’s sources? She is only mentioned in Luke 8:3 and 24:10. Joanna was the wife of one of Herod Antipas’ stewards, a woman in high places and wealthy enough to donate and support Yeshua’s disciples.

The one consistent witness across all of the gospels at all three events was Mary Magdalene. It would seem that she was the best known woman eyewitness in the early Yeshua community. She deserves an article of her own exploring her story as best we can piece it together.

Salome, a woman whose story is not told in the gospels, is another interesting case. Mark lists her at the cross and the tomb, but not at the burial. Is this because Mark the historian only reported names of those whose testimony he knew of from each event? Did he know of Salome’s presence at the cross and tomb, but not at the burial? It would seem Mark is being quite careful.

The mother of John and James son of Zebedee is only listed by Matthew and only at the cross. Again, this seems like remarkable restraint and care in writing the story. What could explain these variations better than the theory of the evangelists’ dependence on direct eyewitness testimony?

Bauckham brings up a case to show Luke’s careful method as well. One of the women he has mentioned in the Yeshua circle is Susanna (Luke 8:3). Yet he does not write Susanna into the tomb stories. This is yet another piece of evidence for the eyewitness theory.

And what about the larger issue of women and their participation in the work of Yeshua and his male disciples?

The Women in Luke
In general, Luke gives us a unique view of the larger group of Yeshua’s disciples beyond the Twelve more than any other gospel (Bauckham lists, for example, Luke 6:17; 8:1-3; 10:1-20; 19:37; 23:49; 24:9, 33).

I keeping with this broader view, Luke also shows the involvement of women more than any gospel. He alone names Joanna and Susanna. He alone notes that women were supporters of Yeshua’s band (8:1-3). Also, the angel in Luke 24:6-7 indicates that the women had known about Yeshua’s predictions of his death and resurrection. As Bauckham says, this reveals that the women were not simply outsiders or supporters, but part of Yeshua’s inner circle who knew his secret mission.

Perhaps the enhanced importance of the women in Luke’s gospel is also part of the eyewitness theory. Since Luke did his own research and went beyond simply using Mark as a source, it must be that women such as Joanna were special sources for him. Luke found a less relied upon source of eyewitness information to use in his gospel, the women who may have been at least partially overlooked by the other evangelists.

1) The foreshadowing of the Great Coming Resurrection in Yeshua’s resurrection.
Resurrection (the bodily raising of the dead at the end of the age) is an idea only referred to in later passages in the Hebrew Bible, but the idea became a staple of classical Jewish faith (not just Christian faith). Pinchas Lapide’s famous book (The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective) concludes that Yeshua truly rose but then reinterprets this in a way that denies he is Messiah. Lapide, in my opinion, overlooks what occurred to Paul on the road to Damascus (where Paul came to understand that if Yeshua was raised, the age to come had already dawned in a way). Far more than a resuscitation, the raising of Yeshua signified the dawning of the new age. With Yeshua the age to come had broken through. See N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God for a more thorough examination. This is no legend and it is not so easily dismissed.

2) The foreshadowing of the final healing and redemption of the world.
The healing stories in the gospels, read them with fresh eyes, are not about a wonder worker or Galilean Hasid (a Galilean Holy Man, as Yeshua is portrayed in Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew). The healing stories of the gospels make the point that wherever Yeshua was, the kingdom was. Isaiah 35 and 61 are very much in mind (see Matt 11:5).

3) The vindication of Yeshua.
Executed as a messianic pretender, he was vindicated by the resurrection and ascension. Lapide’s theory suffers terribly here. If his theory is true (God raised Yeshua because his death was unjust and he was supremely righteous, but he was not Messiah and he died again later), what was God thinking? Why would God raise a pretender?

4) Yeshua’s unconventional messianic aims.
No one, wanting Jews and gentiles in ancient Rome to believe in Yeshua, would invent the many problematic sayings and deeds of Yeshua. He was not the typical messiah-figure and he contradicted many ideas of popular messianism. Various messiah-figures of the first and second centuries have come and gone, but Yeshua the enigmatic one remains.

5) The reliability of the gospels.
So many have said things like this and have been vulnerable because they assumed claims for the gospels that are impossible to defend. I mean by reliability the soundness of oral tradition, the apparent use of eyewitness testimony as detailed in Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, and their inclusion of the embarrassing for the Yeshua movement and even for Yeshua himself. The differences and discrepancies which blew apart, apparently, the faith of Bart Ehrman (Jesus, Interrupted), are only a problem for people who accept a simplistic formula (infallibility or falsehood).

6) The complexity of Yeshua’s understanding.
The concept of God, of Wisdom descending from heaven to earth, of the absolute transcendence of the Direct Being of God and the immanence of the Presence in the world, is awfully advanced for a collection of supposed legends by a church seeking to manufacture a savior. Yeshua’s “you must be born from above” way of thinking foreshadows much mysticism to come. That the early Christian movement did not understand what Yeshua was talking about is evident in the controversies of the first few Church Councils. How did early Christianity invent texts it did not understand?

7) The realism of Yeshua’s death.
He was weak. He thirsted. He shouted loudly at the moment of death (and not, as in many poorly thought-out sermons, a shout of victory, but of despair). He spoke of abandonment (embarrassing to his followers afterwards who had to explain this). If the messiahship and resurrection of Yeshua are invented legends, the inventors were extraordinarily sophisticated.

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.