Credibility Of Eyewitness

Bauckham argues the importance and credibility of the eyewitnesses within the gospel. The eyewitnesses “set the oral traditions” as well as “ remained important figures (19).” The author then amends his original argument to include the reasoning behind only certain eyewitnesses being named. He states, “the gospels are much closer to the way the eyewitnesses told, “ than researchers and historians originally believed. These named individual, or major characters, became members of the early Christian church (20). Each major character told the story with his or her name included, as a result, once others retold the story, the major character’s name was mentioned within the retelling (20). Mark, the author of the Gospel of Mark, “preserves” the

Bauckman states that Laelius was not mention to prove his presence, but he was mentioned several times to “assur the readers” of Laelius relationship with Scipio. The multiple mentioning forms an inclusio when the “comprehensive relationship “ of eyewitness’s testimony (28). Again, when Mark names the three Marys at the cross, he does so for a reason. Bauckman states that the women’s testimonies to the most critical events within the gospel of Mark are credible because of their repeated connection with the word see within the story (30). Using writings from different genres dating back further than the gospels, Bauckham supports his claim stating the credibility of eyewitnesses. For example, although written after the lifetime of Caesar, the Life of Julius Caesar’s author Plutarch describes in intimate details of the moments leading to Caesar 's absolute power through an eyewitness testimony of Caesar’s personal friend Asinius Pollio. Due to his credibility already established in prior works about the Caesar 's life and other roman works, Plutarch uses Pollio’s testimony to validate the author’s claims (35). Only a close companion and fellow soldier has the ability to describe this “critical moment” in Caesar 's reign