Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - Part 4

Click here for the series outline.

Chapter 2. Papias on the Eyewitnesses

An earlier (and less well presented) version of Bauckham’s argument in the second chapter can be found in his article in the inaugural Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (for which I translated an excellent article written by Rainer Riesner: Back to the historical Jesus through Paul and his school, 1. 2003, 2. - page 171-199). The chaps at Apollos.ws have uploaded the whole article here, and the relevant pages are pp. 31-44.

Papias was a third-generation Christian, ‘and therefore to a generation that had been in touch with the first Christian generation’, who, in his last years, lived in Hierapolis. The passage Bauckham analyses is from the prologue to his major work, Exposition of the Logia of the Lord, as recorded in Eusebius (of Caesarea), Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-4. Bauckham’s translation can be found on page 31 of the above linked to article, and it will be important to keep that before you as I summarise his case.

His argument involves analysis of:

1) The categories of people mentioned in the material (suggesting four groups, building on the works of Schoedel)
2) The date about which the material testifies (arguing that it speaks about a period around the 80s – even if it were written much later). This dating ahs the consequence that ‘what Papias says in this passage can be placed alongside Luke's reference to the eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2) as evidence for the way the relationship of the eyewitnesses to Gospel traditions was understood at the time when the Gospels were being written’.

Of course, the immediate upshot of this line if reasoning is clear: ‘The oral traditions had not evolved away from them but continued to be attached to them, so that people like Papias wanted to hear specifically what any one of them said’.

3) The authenticity of the material. Not only does the geographical location of Papias (Hierapolis) suit very comfortably a collection of Jesus traditions, but the tone of the passage is quite modest, and is therefore unlikely a mere apologetic exaggeration.
4) The phrase, ‘a living and surviving voice’. This is not evidence of a prejudice against written materials in preference of oral tradition as many have supposed, but rather is alluding to a common proverb which meant to indicate that ‘what is preferable to writing is not a lengthy chain of oral tradition, but direct personal experience of a teacher’ - a typical piece of wisdom reflected in Greco-Roman historians such as Polybius.

To appreciate Bauckham’s argument, that Papias prefers not oral tradition to books, ‘but access, while they are still alive, to those who were direct participants in the historical events - in this case “disciples of the Lord”’ it is necessary to understand that his reading of Papias is set against a historiographical background. While ‘a living and surviving voice’ points in this direction, Bauckham wants to argue that ‘Papias deliberately uses the terminology of historiographical practice’. Thus he also notes the significance of Papias’ use of the verb anakrinein, a word appearing in Lucian of Samosata’s historiographical work and prominently in that of Polybius. Furthermore, the first sentence of the Prologue, accepting Kürzinger’s revised translation, indicates that: ‘Papias is describing the stages of producing an historical work precisely as Lucian, in his book on how to write history, describes them’.

However, it is to be noticed that Papias adds his own words to this proverbial historiographical wisdom alluded to in ‘a living and surviving voice’. Given the time concerning which Papias reminisces, and that the ‘voice’ refers to the very real voices of eyewitnesses associated with specific groups of people, the words ‘and surviving’ can be better appreciated. What Papias ‘seeks are the reminiscences of those who knew Jesus and in which the passage of time has now been such that few of those people are still alive’. Not only is this how Jerome understood Papias, but this would then make sense of the immediate context of the Prologue in which Papias mentions that which ‘Aristion and the elder John ... were saying (legousin)’. The ‘surviving voices’ here are thus like those mentioned in 1 Cor 15:6 (and cf. Joh 21:22, 23).

Labels: ,


At 11/22/2006 5:51 AM, Blogger Richard Fellows said...

Onomastics is a much over-looked sub-discipline and it is exciting that Bauckham is tackling it. I am hopeful that it will yield many breakthroughs.

Bauckham argues that many of the named individuals in the gospels were known to the readers. Presumably the same would be true of Acts, and Acts 18 supports this view. It can be shown that Sosthenes was Crispus renamed (see Tyndale Bulletin Nov 2005). Acts 18 makes perfect sense if the reader already knew that Sosthenes was Crispus.

Richard rfellows@shaw.ca

At 11/22/2006 1:11 PM, Blogger Steven Carr said...

Papias recollections included a Judas that had swollen so much that he could be compared to a chariot, and a saying which has no counterpart anywhere in the Gospels.

Presumably he got all of that from the living and surviving voices.

Of course, Bauckham could test his hyothesis that the Gospels told the same stories as Papias was hearing by telling us what stories Papias was hearing.

At 11/22/2006 1:18 PM, Blogger Steven Carr said...

Please show that Sosthenes was Crispus renamed.

Acts is not the Gospels. We know that many Christians had heard of Paul and had met him.

But we have no evidence that many Christians in Jerusalem and Judea had met Bartimaeus, whose name has to be explained to the readers.

At 11/22/2006 1:40 PM, Blogger Steven Carr said...

Crispus and Sosthenes

Well, who would have guessed?

The evidence that Crispus and Sosthenese were the same person is the fact that Sosthenese was known to people.

So it is just assumed that they were the same people. No evidence is produced of any Crispus changing his name to Sosthenese.

We can test whether or not Luke thought people would know Sosthenese.

Can we test whether or not Mark could expect people to know Bartimaeus personally, as a 'living miracle'?

Perhaps the lack of explanation of the Crispus/Sosthenes names , compared to the detailed explanation of the name of bartimaeus, may give us a clue here?

At 11/24/2006 3:23 PM, Anonymous Stephen said...

I hesitate to dissent from Bauckham's reconstruction, mostly because I don't want to be lumped in with Mr. Carr.

Moreover, as I've already said, I believe the Gospels do rest on a core body of eyewitness testimony — so I dissent only to a degree.

But it's clear that there was some evolution from one Gospel to the next; some refinement of Mark's language and theology, for example.

The question then becomes, How rapidly did that evolution unfold? How quickly did it produce radical changes to the Evangelists' account of history?

To give a specific example, the prologues to Matthew and Luke report that Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin. I assume Bauckham regards that as reliable testimony, which can be traced to an eyewitness.

Personally, I doubt it very much.

At 11/24/2006 6:11 PM, Blogger Chris Tilling said...

Thanks for these comments, I'll return to them when I find time

At 11/24/2006 6:13 PM, Blogger Chris Tilling said...

Stephen, to quickly take up your thoughts (Steven and Richard, I'll come back to these later)

Bauckham wouldn't deny development and evolution. And no, he doesn't associate teh birth narratives with eyewitnesses - a position he actually refutes in a footnote.

I'll have to explain in more detail when I have more time.

At 11/24/2006 7:57 PM, Anonymous Stephen said...

Thanks for the clarification, Chris.

Obviously the Twelve couldn't have provided eyewitness testimony to the virginal conception. But I've heard evangelicals argue that Mary was one of Luke's sources.

At 11/26/2006 11:04 AM, Blogger Steven Carr said...

Presumably Bauckham does associate the transfer of a story about Levi to a story about Matthew as being associated with eyewitnesses.


Post a Comment

<< Home