The inclusio of eyewitness testimony? Is that a thing?

Here I talk about an alleged literary device (not a fact-changing one) that NT scholar Richard Bauckham thinks we find in the Gospels to indicate their eyewitness sources. I applaud Bauckham's emphasis on eyewitness testimony in the Gospels, but I just don't think this device is really there. In fact, I question whether such a device even existed. (Bauckham doesn't claim that he has any source that explicitly talks about it.) Here I carefully go through arguments that it is found in Mark, Luke, and John and show that they just are insufficient to bear the weight put on them.  Even when an argument supports our own conclusions, it may not be a cogent argument. We should be especially cautious about embracing extremely subtle devices that authors supposedly deliberately put into their documents "under the surface" in order to make a point. The Gospels show plenty of other evidence of eyewitness testimony and sometimes even explicitly claim it. But I don't think we should use the "inclusio" claim. I especially urge that you not refer to it using successful language like, "We have found a device called the inclusion of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels." This can give the false impression that ancient authors actually talked about using such a device, that the case is clear that such a device existed, and that there is a very strong case that this "thing" is in the Gospels.  

Here is a two-part review of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses that I wrote some years ago. There's plenty of good stuff in Bauckham's book. I just don't agree with this particular claim:  http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/jesus-and-eyewitnesses-blog-review-part.html https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2020/08/jesus-and-eyewitnesses-blog-review-part_18.html 

And here is a video on "explaining away" that I refer to:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnz6-WR21H0 

Originally uploaded May 22, 2022