Steven Carr

Richard Bauckham writes 'Why is it that in Mark’s gospel Jarius and Bartimaus were named, while all other recipients of Jesus’ healings are anonymous (Mark 6:3; 10:46)? Why does Luke, in his narrative of the two disciples who meet the risen Jesus on the way to Emmaus name one of the two (Cleopas) but not the other (Luke 24:18)… The only hypothesis I know that accounts for the evidence is that in most of these cases the names persons became members of the early Christian communities and themselves told the stories in which they appear in the gospels.'

It appears that living in a fantasy land is a requisite for being a mainstream Biblical scholar.

But Bauckham has put forward an hypothesis.

This is a perfectly correct thing to do.

Now, how does he intend to test this hypothesis?

And what is the point of mainstream Biblical scholarship if all it can do is lead to untested ad hoc hypotheses, rather than actual facts or knowledge?

Amaleq13

Absent new evidence, I don't see how he can but one could challenge his acceptance of it as the "only" available answer by offering an alternative.

What is the alternative?

Arbitrary creation of extra details?

Malachi151

I rather prefer the idea put forward here by someone that Bar-Timaus refers to Platonic thinker, much like Bar-Abbas in the crucifixion scene is an ironic twist to having two "Son's of the Father" on the chopping block, the other of which is freed.

Doug Shaver

Or a lack of imagination.

I am reminded of an article I read several years ago about the legend of Prester John. I'm afraid the author's name is among many other details that I've forgotten. Anyway, the author reviewed the various versions of the story that showed up over the years, and he considered the various rulers, warlords, etc. on whom the legends might, according to some scholars, have been based. He declared all them improbable as candidates for the "historical Prester John." He concluded the article with remarks to this effect:

Many historians have professed to be mystified as to how the legend could have gotten started without some basis in historical fact. That is because they examined the evidence from a historian's perspective rather than a writer's perspective. The Prester John legend was never about a real person. It was just a story that somebody made up for no other reason than that he just wanted to tell somebody a good story. Writers understand that that is all the reason a writer needs.

Bauckham needs to talk to a few fiction writers to get some hypotheses about why Luke and the other gospel authors might have left some of their characters unnamed.

mountainman

Has this Richard Bauckham read the non-canonical "Act of Peter" (the Coptic fragment) where Peter heals the multitudes but not his own daughter, and if so, how consistent is this hypothesis with this coptic fragment?


It is an exercise of the blind eye in the manner of ancient mainstream Biblical tax-exempt scholarship, like the following ...


Best wishes,


Pete