Steven Carr

On page 200 of 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (or via: amazon.co.uk)', Professor Richard Bauckham makes up a story about the young man in Mark 14 being Lazarus raised from the dead. He also makes up a claim that Mark did not say this young man was Lazarus because Lazarus was a wanted man and so could not be named by Mark.

The anonymous author of Luke had a very clever idea to make sure Lazarus was not killed for the crime of being raised from the dead. He turned Lazarus into a character in a parable, so that any government officials who read his book would think that Lazarus was a fictional character and so not try to kill him.

That was a clever idea by Luke wasn't it?

Luke also turned the fig-tree that Jesus blasted for not bearing fruit into a parable of a fig-tree that did not bear fruit.

Perhaps the fig-tree also needed 'protective anonymity'?

Or perhaps characters and stories about Jesus wandered between real-life and parables depending upon the spin individual Gospel writers wanted to put on them.

dog-on

Why does this surprise you?

Julio

It seems that the "parable" of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus is a story introduced later in Luke.
Internal evidence so it suggests.
You read the last few verses of chapter 15, and jump to verse 14 in the next chapter.
You will not notice anything has been left behind; whereas the story of the rich man and Lazarus is [it seems to be] forced in the text.
My opinion.

Steven Carr

But how can Richard Bauckham write such things as he does on page 200 of 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' without mainstream Biblical scholars simply laughing at the ad hoc fantasies he pulls out of nowhere?

It is simply shocking that an academic discipline tolerates such work.

Julio

By the way, I would like to ask you folks to help me find a passage in Luke, where the story clearly starts in one early chapter, it is interrupted after a few verses, and ends in a section of another chapter [some chapters ahead].
I've been trying to locate that story in Luke for some time unsuccessfully.
I know it is there somewhere.

dog-on

Because mainstream Biblical scholars share a set of assumptions that neither you, or I happen to share.

dog-on

An interesting thing, when reading Luke is that it seems to have two beginnings.

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

and

1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

of course:

21When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

insertion, insertion, insetion...

1Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.

Luke is filled with insertions, imo, but what would one expect from the editor and author of Acts...

Steven Carr

The only dated event in Luke's Gospel is, of course, nothing to do with an event in Jesus's life.

Steven Carr

As it happens, Richard Bauckham has a set of assumptions that even Richard Bauckham does not share.

I quote from http://thegoldenrule1.wordpress.com/...l-communities/

‘Just as last post focused on the rise and fall (in some quarters) of form criticism, another shibboleth is that the evangelists wrote for specific communities (e.g., Markan community) without the goal of wider circulation among all Christians and that we can use the Gospels to reconstruct the life situation of these particular communities. Richard Bauckham is again at the forefront of challenging the consensus.’

Is this the same Richard Bauckham who claimed that Mark mentioned Bartimaeus because he was writing for a specific community for whom Bartimaeus was notable, and that Luke did not include the name because he was writing for a specific community for whom the name Bartimaeus was fading from memory?

dog-on

I am not sure that a phantom can be said to have a life, per se.