Steven Carr

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

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

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

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

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

Is not the whole thing preposterous?

And more importantly, un-evidenced?

Ben C Smith

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

Ben.

Steven Carr

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

So what evidence does Bauckham give for his claims?

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

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

Toto

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

At least Stephen Carlson notes on his blog

Toto

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

jyoshu

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

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

Steven Carr

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

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

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

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

Chris Weimer

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

Steven Carr

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


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

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

Chris Weimer

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