Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2nd Edition, Richard Bauckham, foreword by Simon Gathercole. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (ISBN: 9780802874313) 2017.

Summary: Argues from both early church fathers and internal evidence that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony.

Gospel scholarship over the past hundred years has embraced the idea that the gospels reflect anonymous community traditions that have passed through a number of hands, or storytellers. It is assumed that the “historical Jesus” behind these gospels is only dimly and uncertainly accessible. In this work, Richard Bauckham, in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, asserts that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony concerning the life and teaching of Jesus. His contention is that this testimony is “both a reputable historiographic category for reading the gospels as history and also a theological model for understanding the gospels as the entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus” (p. 5). He cites Samuel Byrskog’s scholarship emphasizing the importance of eyewitness testimony in ancient historiography.

He then begins his case for the gospels as eyewitness testimony with the early church father, Papias. Papias, writing around 130 CE, argued for the “living and surviving voice” rather than information from books. He preferred elders who could testify to what any of the Lord’s disciples had said. Specifically, he gave credence to those who heard Peter, John, Matthew or John the Elder. Rather than collective traditions, he prized above all testimony–the testimony on which our gospels are based.

In succeeding chapters, Bauckham looks at the gospels. He begins with the named persons, arguing their significance as possible sources of the accounts in which they are named. To underscore the credibility of the gospels, he creates a table of names in the gospels. Then he compares it to the frequency of common names of the time, finding significant overlap. He considers the twelve named disciples, the variants on their names, and their significance as eyewitnesses.

Then Bauckham turns to Mark. He notes the use of inclusio in naming Peter at both the beginning and end of the gospel and more than others (he also notes similar forms of inclusio in Luke and John to establish eyewitness testimony). In addition, there is an unusual alternating from third to first person in Mark that Bauckham suggests indicative of Peter’s speech. At this point, Bauckham brings in Papias, who mentions Mark as the translator of Peter. He affirms Matthew as writing an Aramaic version of this gospel (from which our Greek version arises).

Bauckham then offers an extended discussion of oral tradition, memorization, arguing that individuals kept traditions rather than communities. This includes an interesting chapter on eyewitness memory in modern psychology, with the conclusion that the gospels represent genuine memories.

However, the most interesting, and perhaps controversial material in the book, concerns his chapters on the Gospel of John. He argues that John, unlike the other gospels is not based on eyewitness testimony but rather is eyewitness testimony. Specifically, it is the testimony of the Beloved Disciple. However, he would identify “John” not as the son of Zebedee but as “John the Elder,” based on Papias. He argues that this John was not one of the twelve. However, he was a “beloved” friend, part of a larger group of disciples who had been with Jesus throughout his ministry. Unfortunately, discussion over who John is can overshadow Bauckham’s more important point, that this gospel is eyewitness testimony.

The book concludes with Bauckham recapitulating his argument for the gospels as testimony. While such testimony must be weighed, he argues for a presumption of trust rather than suspicion. Bauckham adds several chapters to the second edition at this point. These address criticisms of the earlier edition, particularly concerning eyewitnesses in Mark and the identity of John. Provocatively, he concludes that if his case for the gospels as testimony holds up, this means the end of form criticism.

It is striking to me to encounter scholarly confirmation of conclusions that arose inductively from student Bible studies in my college days. While we didn’t have the tables or patristic evidence marshalled by Bauckham, we took seriously Luke’s testimony of how he wrote his work. We saw Mark’s focus on Peter. We accepted John’s claim to be offering eyewitness testimony and noted the details unique to his account that suggested an eyewitness presence. It has always been baffling to me to see the skepticism of many scholars toward these accounts. Bauckham makes a strong case that my early reading of the gospels was not off the mark. More than that, it suggests we can approach these accounts with a high degree of confidence that they render accounts of Jesus that may be trusted.

I’m sure that some will continue to quarrel over the question of Johannine authorship. While I incline to the traditional view of John the Apostle, Bauckham’s contention doesn’t trouble me. Either are equally eyewitnesses. We don’t know the authorship of Hebrews and affirm it as scripture. I do suspect that form critics and the questers for the historical Jesus have a problem with Bauckham. I would suggest the real problem is the contention that the gospels are not what they present themselves to be but rather are anonymous community traditions. Wouldn’t it be surprising if what most Christians through history believed the gospels to be and the best gospel scholarship were agreed? Bauckham gives us hope that might be possible.