Julio

You're right, but that is not the passage I'm looking for.
It is something else, somewhere in the one chapter before the 10th or so, I cannot remember.
But, yes, Marcion's Luke [according to Waite in his book "History of the Christian Religion...] started in chapter 3.

Steven Carr

Lazarus was allegedly very famous, which is why Mark never named him, to protect his anonymity.

While, of course,oral tradition spread his name like wildfire among Christians so that Paul never needed to mention him as everybody already knew all about such stories.

Surely Bauckham's work is so bad that it brings Biblical scholarship into disrepute.

How can such a book be tolerated by the academic community?

aa5874

Is that peer review? The history of the Church is in the hands of Jesus worshipers with Ph.Ds.

Toto

I notice that the pro-Bauckham crowd is overrepresented on Amazon. There are two one star reviews that are both excellent (one by Neil Godfrey) and there is some interesting discussion following the one by Eric Zuesse. Some of Zuesse's replies in the discussion are not shown because of the negative reviews from those who disagree with him.

Steven Carr

Have you read the utter nonsense that Bauckham references on page 200 of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?

It can be found http://www.bsw.org/Biblica/Vol-79-19...icle-p525.html

‘If the figure is to be identified as Lazarus, one would have to accept that Lazarus in the Garden was actually dressed for conscious effect. Lazarus dressed in that manner could in context only advertise his remarkable personal history, which was causing such excitement in the city.’

‘It is his naked escape that has been held above to guarantee his historicity and his naked escape is the result of his spare garb.’

The article is sheer garbage ,of the sort that mainstream Biblical scholars would never criticise.

Even Richard Bauckham had the good sense not to quote too much of the work he was referencing.

Toto

I think this is the problem: Christians are supposed to be nice people, and it's really not nice (in the social sense) to criticise others' deeply held beliefs - unless those people are heretics.

So Christian scholars have a psychological reluctance to be really critical of another Christian work, especially since they hang out with those people at the SBL or whereever, and might want to get a job from them.

Real scholarship requires people without any manners, who are willing to point out absurdities.

Steven Carr

Absurdities like a random passer-by at the crucifixion having 2 sons who later became Christians and also were known to the very first Gospel writer?

But the sons of the guy who literally carried the cross of the Son of God became unknown and so 'Matthew' and 'Luke' decided not to mention them when they rewrote Mark,as nobody would have known who they were talking about?

Bauckham assures us that Alexander and Rufus told people their father's story of carrying the cross of God. They were 'well-known figures', but just a few years later, Matthew and Luke omitted them as they were no longer well-known.

How quickly people forget!

But we must remember that oral tradition was amazingly good at transmitting stories across the decades from the death of Jesus to the Gospels with astonishing accuracy, even if famous people become unknown figures in just a few years.

andrewcriddle

FWIW Bauckham makes reasonably clear the problematic elements of Haren's argument and (politely) indicates that he does not agree with the argument in this form. Bauckham had to note that Haren had previously suggested that the young man was Lazarus in order to avoid being accused of falsely claiming priority.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

...history isn't science, and Biblical history has more in common with Spongebob than it does with physics.

aa5874

Science is used to help to understand the past.