Sat 17 Mar 2007
Eyewitness Testimony in the New Testament
Posted by Darren under Apologetics , Epistemology , Faith , God , JesusI'm currently in the process of working on my research essay for my Apologetics class (PDF course outline). We're allowed to choose any topic we want for our essays, so I chose the historical reliability of the New Testament. One book that I was sure I wanted to use was Richard Bauckham's newest, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, which argues that "the four Gospels are closely based on eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus". (Bauckham is professor of New Testament at St. Andrews University in Scotland.) I haven't had a chance to read the entire book yet (this topic comprises only part of my overall argument in my essay) but it seems like a fantastic book so far; thoroughly researched and convincing, as well as being evenhanded and logical.
Here is the relevant excerpt from my paper. The footnotes are removed; the majority of the references are from Dr Bauckham's book. (See "Further Reading" below for more sources.)
Although everyone recognizes the limitations of eyewitness testimony, it is still powerful evidence that was highly valued in the ancient world and is still valued highly today. Communication in the first century was primarily oral, necessitating that people develop strong memory skills. Some first century Rabbis even memorized entire books of the Old Testament! (I personally once witnessed a man dramatically recite the entire book of Luke from memory.) This lends credibility to the idea that the eyewitness accounts would still be reliable many years after the events themselves took place; even today amazing feats of memory are still possible, especially when the circumstances are ripe for strong memory retention.
Ancient historians did not place as high a value on recording the exact words spoken by an individual, and instead attempted to communicate the speaker's intended meaning as fully as possible. Therefore, while different authors may record a speaker's words slightly differently, their testimonies can still be reliable. Additionally, if the stories in the gospel were all related in exactly the same way, we might suspect collusion between the authors: If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. (Craig L. Blomberg) That the gospels relate the same events but in slightly different ways suggests that what they present is a common historical core from different perspectives.
If the New Testament material comes directly from eyewitness accounts rather than secondary or tertiary accounts, the case for the reliability of the New Testament is strengthened. Since the New Testament was written within the lifespans of those who observed the events it records, the eyewitnesses to the events would still be alive to verify the contents of the New Testament when it was written and began to be circulated. [Note: In the full essay I develop the case for the early dating of the New Testament texts.]
A good case can be made that Mark's gospel is based on eyewitness testimony, namely that of Peter, and perhaps also of Mark himself and others. (Cases can also be made for other New Testament documents.) Firstly, Mark's gospel places more emphasis on Peter than any other gospel. For example, Mark notes Jesus speaks to Peter directly twice in Gethsemane, whereas the other gospels are more general. Mark also mentions Peter more times per page than any other gospel writer. Secondly, Mark uses the technique of inclusio (a literary framing device) at the beginning and end of his gospel which likely indicates that Peter is the source of the gospel's material. Finally, external testimony from Papias in the late first or early second century (as quoted by Eusebius) confirms Mark as author of the gospel and his use of Peter as a source. Taken together, this evidence strongly suggests that Mark's gospel is based on testimony from Peter, a direct eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. (Bauckham also suggests several other lines of evidence, such as the curious wording of section 13 of the "Gospel of Thomas".)
A unique and puzzling detail in Mark's gospel is recorded in Mark 14:51-52: A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. This seemingly inconsequential incident does not appear in the other gospels. Why did the author choose to include it? It seems quite possible that the author himself was the young man … following Jesus (the young man was not one of the apostles) and therefore chose to include this incident in the gospel because it involved himself. This theory is inconclusive, but nonetheless an intriguing possibility, and regardless it is an example of one of many anonymous witnesses in the gospels, any of which are probable eyewitness sources for the gospels.
Further Reading:
- Jesus and the Eyewitnesses – Fantastic scholarly book that argues for the eyewitness sources behind the New Testament. (Link is to Amazon.com)
- The Historical Reliability of the Gospels – Craig L. Blomberg gives twelve reasons why the New Testament is trustworthy.
- Classic eBook: The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? – Online version of F. F. Bruce's classic book. (Note that this is the 5th edition; the 6th is the most recent, and available from Amazon and other booksellers.)
8 Responses to “Eyewitness Testimony in the New Testament”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Hi Darren
I am a Christian who is thinking through the subject of the reliability of the Gospels.
You wrote: Since the New Testament was written within the lifespans of those who observed the events it records, the eyewitnesses to the events would still be alive to verify the contents of the New Testament when it was written and began to be circulated.
But how do we know from this distance that the eyewitnesses didn't protest about the accuracy of the written Gospels? How do we know that they didn't protest but it's just that their protests didn't get recorded for posterity, since they were largely ordinary people without access to the public media? False Gospels about Jesus were being circulated and believed (Galatians 1:6), so if some false Gospels were being believed, how can we be sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not some of the false ones which some people were accepting and believing? We know that people were preaching a Jesus other than the one Paul preached and that this was accepted 'easily enough' by the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:4). Even if the eyewitnesses contradicted M,M,L,& J, Christians would still go on believing them (cf. the continuation of Mormonism when it was pointed out that the Golden Plates were fake, and the continuation of Jehovah's Witnesses after the world did not end in 1914 or 1917 or 1925 or 1931 or 1975). Some people still believe Elvis is alive!
I am very interested to hear your comments please! Thanks.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Hi Phil!
You asked, "how do we know from this distance that the eyewitnesses didn’t protest about the accuracy of the written Gospels?"
It's quite hard to prove a negative. As you'd noted, we don't have any indication that the apostles protested the accuracy of the gospels.
The "different gospel" Paul notes in Galatians 1:6 doesn't refer to the written gospels, Paul is referring to "the gospel", ie, being "called […] by the grace of Christ," the central message of Christianity. (Perhaps a creed such as is found in 1 Corinthians 15.) So Paul is not referring to written gospels there. In fact, one of the reasons why MMLJ are trusted is that they are the earliest gospels we have; others such as the Gospel of Judas were written in the second century or later. The apostles were alive to preserve the central truths in the earliest days of the Christian faith; they were considered the authorities. There was a strong oral tradition before the MMLJ gospels were ever written down, and the early churches would not have used them if they contradicted the oral tradition. In essence, MMLJ were nearly universally used by all the churches despite vast geographical differences because they were considered the most accurate.
The post you've commented on is from 2007, but there is an updated chapter on this topic in my free ebook here:
http://whyfaith.com/nt/
If you're seriously interested in this topic the best resource I've found so far is Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses":
http://j.mp/34OERA
(Link to the Google Books version, not complete but you can read some of the chapters; full version is of course available on Amazon or wherever.)
April 13th, 2010 at 1:25 am
[…] […]
December 17th, 2013 at 11:14 am
Hi there, i read your blog occasionally and i own a
similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of
spam feedback? If so how do you reduce it, any
plugin or anything you can suggest? I get so much lately it's driving me
mad so any assistance is very much appreciated.
December 19th, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Hey there, You've done an excellent job. I will definitely digg it and in my opinion suggest to my friends. I am sure they'll be benefited from this website.
December 21st, 2013 at 4:32 pm
I really like this weblog, excellent content material and I am going to bookmark this web site for future updates.
December 23rd, 2013 at 6:33 am
Будущий сноубордов
Традиционный Высший Сноуборды: Традиционные выпуклые сноуборды имеют профиля перевернутой U. Таким образом, когда вы лежали плашмя, средней части поднимается от земли. Это первоначальная характер для сноубордов и существует по сей день. Традиционные сноуборды развала доставить наибольшее ответ, верность края, и оснастки.
Rockered Сноуборды: Rockered сноуборды полная противоположность традиционным развала сноубордов с точки зрения профиля. Укладка одна помещение увидите советы поднял с земли с средней части прикосновения. Rockered сноуборды обеспечивают повышенную поплавок и извинение / игривость.
Плоские Апогей Сноуборды: Жилище развала именно то, который это звучит вдруг: плоские. Вы заложить сноуборд плоским и профиль будет сидеть на одном уровне с землей всего с кончиков немного приподнял. Квартира развала дает вам больше поплавок, чем традиционные развала, только меньше, чем рокер. То же самое касается характеристики управляемости: он сидит среди традиционной развала и rockered. Плоские выпуклые сноуборды, ровно положение, самый быстрый.
Гибридные Сноуборды: Гибридные сноуборды сочетание любых иначе всех перечисленных выше типов рокера. Это, вероятно, наиболее универсальные сноуборды для рынке. Они сочетают в себе лучшие характеристики каждой формы в единственный сноуборд. Они были бы ваши "Джек-из-все руки" сноуборды.
Направленные Сноуборды: Направленные сноуборды имеют позицию, которая снижение с к центру, оставляя вас с более длинным носом и коническим хвост. [url=http://snowboardlife.ru/index.php]прокат сноубордов[/url] Это стандартная платье чтобы сноубордов. Он предлагает наибольший контроль устойчивости всех форм.
Твин: Твин сноуборды фристайл сосредоточены. Место для двойной сноуборда сосредоточена и кончик и хвост имеют те же размеры. Две сноубордов прекрасно подходят ради парка гонщиков или все-гора фристайл измельчители, потому что характеристики управляемости в разделе довольно то же самое во время езды переключатель.
Направленные Твин Сноуборды: Направленные пара сноуборды в основном пара с пониженной позиции. [url=http://snowboardlife.ru/gornolyzhnyy-otdyh/]прокат горных лыж[/url] Вы получаете такую ??же стабильность через направленных сноубордов с характеристиками коммутатора, подобных двойника. Направленные пара являются стандартом ради всех-горного фристайла.
December 23rd, 2013 at 9:28 pm
You've made some really good points there. I looked on the net to find out more about the issue and found most people will
go along with your views on this website.