Click here for the series outline.Chapter 5. The Twelve
Bauckham’s central contention in the historical argument of book is that Gospel traditions were associated with named eyewitnesses of the teaching, life death and resurrection of Jesus, and that these traditions remained, in transmission, closely associated with these specific eyewitnesses. Gospel traditions should not, then, be understood as the product of tradition circulated in anonymous church communities. The Twelve, while not alone (Bauckham contends that Gerhardsson’s stress on the authoritative status of the Twelve is exaggerated) should nevertheless be seen as central in the transmission process.
But, and to be blunt, is the appointing of twelve disciples by Jesus historical? Along with the ‘majority of recent scholars’ Bauckham, accepting the judgements of John Meier [J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 3 (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 128-147:], S. M. Bryan [S. M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel's Traditions of Judgement and Restoration (SNTSMS 117; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 123-124.], M. Hengel [Hengel, The Charismatic Leader] and others, confidently affirms the historical veracity of the Twelve. And these disciples were, importantly, appointed first and foremost to be Jesus’ companions. [Though they were not the only ones as, e.g. ‘there were also the women (Luke 8:1-3)’]. Bauckham’s key claim is that the disciples remained the authoritative transmitters of the Jesus tradition in the earliest Christian communities. Not only is this a most natural assumption given that the Twelve would be the most obvious group to formulate and organise a body of Jesus traditions, Bauckham will develop an original case for his theory through an analysis of the Synoptic lists of the Twelve.
The lists of the Twelve
Bauckham claims that the lists of the Twelve that are found in all the synoptic Gospels (he will examine the significance of the fact John doesn’t have one later) are confirmation ‘that the Twelve constituted an official body of eyewitnesses’. Given the presence of Judas in all the lists, and his being allocated the final position, Bauckham fairly reasons the lists, while detailing the pre-Easter situation, are written from the perspectives of the early Church, and are thus ‘fashioned precisely to display the continuity of this group during and after Jesus' ministry, i.e. with Jesus and in the early Christian community’. This is so not least because the lists were clearly not added to the Gospels merely to introduce the characters as ‘no less than seven of these persons are never elsewhere mentioned again or appear as individuals in the Gospels of Mark and Luke, while the same is true of six of them in Matthew’.
So why are the names of the disciples listed in the Gospels?
‘They are named, not as the authorities for this or that specific tradition, but as responsible for the overall shape of the story of Jesus and much of its content’.This is a suggestion made most explicit in Luke 1:2, but is, Bauckham urges, ‘surely implicit in Matthew and Mark’.
10 comments:
But, and to be blunt, is the appointing of twelve disciples by Jesus historical?
I am simply curious, and please correct me if I am reading anything into your typed words here, but there seems to be the underlying hope on your part that the dominical appointment of the twelve is not historical. No?
Well, once again I made a special trip to the local seminary bookshop and asked if they had this book. Reply: "No, the fifty copies we have on order haven't arrived yet. Check back later this month."
So, when and if Eerdmans ever get around to delivering copies to this particular city in North America, I will be able to follow your series on this book.
Bauckham argues that Thaddaeus should be equated with Judas son of James, and this got me thinking. The name "Thaddaeus" meant something like "Gift of God" (see Bauckham page 10), and the names "Matthew" and "Nathanael" mean the same thing. Now, curiously, all three individuals are equated with other people. Matthew is probably Levi, and Nathanael, whose name does not appear in the synoptics is often equated with Bartholomew or James son of Alphaeus. I therefore speculate that Jesus considered his twelve disciples to be gifts from God (see Matt.9:37-10:4), and named three of them accordingly.
Richard F.
Chris, thanks for this reviewl. It is very interesting and helpful.
This article, published 10 days ago, could also support the case of Bauckham's book:
Rainer Riesner, ‘Die historische Zuverlässigkeit der Apostelgeschichte’, Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 18 (2006), 38-43.
It is argued in dialogue with Daniel Marguerat, who holds a different position, in the "controversy"-section of the journal.
Neil wrote:
If any of the twelve (or any other named persons in the gospels) were the transmitters of any of the gospel "traditions" then why don't any of the gospels simply say so?
Luke's prologue speaks (craftily?) of eye-witnesses but they are dropped like a stone in the rest of the text.
Richard F responds:
Neil makes interesting observations, but the argument can perhaps be reversed. The fact that Luke does not explicitly name individuals as eyewitnesses might indicate that everybody already knew who the eyewitnesses were. If Luke took it for granted that his readers knew that the twelve were the main eyewitnesses, this might explain why Luke does not need to appeal the authority of specific eyewitnesses (unlike some later non-canonical documents).
Neil wrote:
Mark says the Twelve were chosen in order to "preach" (3:14) -- that does not sound at all like the same thing as being a "witnesses" of the life of Jesus.
Richard F responds:
The twelve were appointed as "apostles", which means that they were to represent their master as his emissaries. This role is not so very different to the role of eyewitness that Bauckham thinks they later took.
Richard F.
Biran (Brian?),
No, you certainly misread me there. Why would I want that?
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your comments.
If any of the twelve (or any other named persons in the gospels) were the transmitters of any of the gospel "traditions" then why don't any of the gospels simply say so?
Bauckham’s argument is that the Gospels do say so. This he also bases upon a few other documents that correspond to the nature of the Gospels (biographical works on significant religious figures), namely Lucian’s work on Alexander and Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus (there are not many to work with). I’ll get to that in the review soon enough (next chapter)
Other non-canonical gospels were quite capable of attributing certain sayings or experiences to this or that one of the Twelve or other, or at least in one case to all of the 12. Why not the canonical gospels?
This is one reason why the evidence in Papias is so significant, as it claims that the standards specifically for the Gospels were different.
to our gospellers, other ancient historians who wanted to maintain some credibility gave readers the assurance of knowing who they (the authors) were, and even on what grounds they presented varying versions of an event, etc.
There is some debate as to whether the names were attached to the Gospels from the beginning. But one could equally say that the Gospels are themselves witnesses that not all careful biographical works on significant religious figures included explicit mention of the author – though it also needs to be added that Papias was sure with whom the Gospels were associated with.
Mark says the Twelve were chosen in order to "preach" (3:14) -- that does not sound at all like the same thing as being a "witnesses" of the life of Jesus. Mark also seems to be at pains to suggest the 12 would be completely uncomprehending witnesses anyway.
Preach different from witness? Why?
This point Bauckham addresses at some length, also in relation to John’s Gospel and the play off between John and Peter. I’ll get to that in the series.
Luke seems to agree, informing readers in effect that everything they really truly knew about Jesus they were taught by him AFTER his resurrection. (24:44-48)
Dunn is worth reading on this, either his Jesus Remembered or the smaller work, New Perspective on Jesus.
Not having read Bauckham I am curious to know how much evidential support he offers for the hypothesis that the 12 are conveyors of the traditions contained within the gospels.
Well, this is the where the rubber hits the road, and I cannot detail all of his reasoning and evidence, otherwise I’d need to re-write the book. Best thing would be to read his book, which is very smoothly written, btw.
For other points, I think Richard has made some interesting points, ones that Bauckham also employs.
Hi Richard,
Well, I suppose that is possible!
Hi Jonathan,
My pleasure!
Hi Volker!
Rainer already spent a while on this matter in Paul’s Early Period, so I’m curious what will be new. Thanks for the tip.
At 1/07/2007 8:41 AM, Richard Fellows said...
Neil makes interesting observations, but the argument can perhaps be reversed. The fact that Luke does not explicitly name individuals as eyewitnesses might indicate that everybody already knew who the eyewitnesses were. If Luke took it for granted that his readers knew that the twelve were the main eyewitnesses, this might explain why Luke does not need to appeal the authority of specific eyewitnesses (unlike some later non-canonical documents).
Neil's response:
Would not this imply that the gospels were written exclusively for an audience who knew all the eyewitnesses on which the story was based? If so then one must wonder what the point of writing the story would have been in the first place -- surely it was nothing new and far more was to be be gained from the oral testimonies of those known eyewitnesses than from a summary reading. Against the speculation that maybe eyewitnesses were not named as such because were too well known, we have the material examples of historians who attempt to establish their credibility by declaring their personal identities and backgrounds, their sources, making clear their views on varying accounts, etc. I find it difficult in the extreme to understand how gospel writers could have avoided attempting to establish the credibility of their accounts if they were written as history of any kind.
Richard F responds:
The twelve were appointed as "apostles", which means that they were to represent their master as his emissaries. This role is not so very different to the role of eyewitness that Bauckham thinks they later took.
Neil's response:
Mark always refers to them as "disciples" (the only exception being 6:30). In Mark they are sent by Jesus to preach repentance (6:13) given the imminence of the kingdom of God (1:15-17). Nor can I see that Mark attempts to establish any credibility for any of the Twelve as eyewitnesses.
(I have yet to see Bauckham's book, by the way.)
Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com
Chris tilling:
Bauckham’s argument is that the Gospels do say so. This he also bases upon a few other documents that correspond to the nature of the Gospels (biographical works on significant religious figures), namely Lucian’s work on Alexander and Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus (there are not many to work with). I’ll get to that in the review soon enough (next chapter)
Neil:
Looks like next move would be for me to wait to see the book to respond with better grasp of the overview.
In reply to Neil, I would add that the natural reading of the "We" passages in Acts implies that the book is based on the testimony of at least one eyewitness. The way the 'we' passages mysteriously come and go seems odd to us, but would make sense to the original reader(s) if they knew the background. This eyewitness testimony is not explicitly stated, but is implied. Therefore Bauckham's hypothesis that implied eyewitnesses lie behind the gospels is rather plausible, though it cannot be proved.
The fact that some writers presented the credentials of their sources is no argument for the view that the texts that did not do so were not based on eyewitness testimony.
I think you will be unconvinced by Bauckham's book when you get it. He has no water-tight argument and there are very few solid facts with which questions concerning the origin of the gospels can be decided. Acts is different since it can be measured against the undisputed letters of Paul and other sources. I believe that it can be shown that Acts is basically accurate and based on eyewitness accounts, at least in part. It seems likely that Luke's gospel, at least, fits a similar genre.
Richard F.
Post a Comment