Steven Carr

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2006...s-part_30.html

'While it is perfectly intelligible why some persons in the Gospels are even named at all, with others an explanation is necessary. For example, why is it that Luke only names one of the disciples in the Emmaus road story (cf. Luke 24:18)?'

Why does it need an explanation that some names are dropped by Matthew and Luke?


Because Bauckham cannot build a fire without trying to find some smoke somwhere?

'Not only is the assumption that many of these characters joined the early Christian communities in Judea or Galilee explicitly affirmed in a few cases (e.g. the four brothers of Jesus),...'

Why does Paul drop the names of the 4 brothers of Jesus?

Because they were no longer well known?

Bauckham demands an explanation of why Matthew and Luke drop the names of Bartimaeus and Jairus.

So we can demand an explanation of why Paul does not name the 4 brothers of Jesus?

Or is the whole enterprise doomed to failure of providing a comprehensive thesis of why Matthew and Luke drop the name of Bartimaeus, while Paul drops the names of the 4 brothers of Jesus?

Ben C Smith

That is a very good point, Steven. I wonder what Bauckham would say.

Ben.

Steven Carr

Can I guess why Paul does not name the brothers of Jesus? Because they were so well-known?

Can I guess why Mark names Bartimaeus? Because he was so well-known?

neilgodfrey

If, as is often said, the rationale for the later authors omitting some names in Mark would have been because either:

(a) the later authors were interested in abbreviating Mark and took the opportunity to do so by omitting names of people who had been lost from their audience's view; and/or

(b) the people named in Mark had fallen into disfavour in those later communities;

then how do we account for Matthew and Luke introducing into Mark's account the names of Caiaphas and Herod at the trial of Jesus?

As for the omission of names of those fallen into disfavour, isn't it rather normal for the entire episodes involving those disgraced to be omitted from later records, not just their names?

If there are different rules at work for the names of non-disciples and disciples then on what grounds can one deny the charge of being flippantly ad-hoc?

Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

Steven Carr

None, as can be seen by the frequent apologetic that Mark does not mention Caiaphas, because he was so well-known to his readers.

What is needed is evidence that people were or were well not well known to the intended readers of the Gospels, so that these hypotheses can be tested.

But in NT scholarship , all that is needed to test an hypothesis is for the proposer of the hypothesis to have a degree.