The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009

1. Are the gospels of the NT written anonymously or not?

I begin this with an excerpt from Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The
Gospels as Eyewitnesses Testimony).

Bauckham’s basic argument that the Gospels are “trusting testimony” of eyewitnesses.
He notes, that “They [Gospels] embody the testimony of the eyewitnesses , not of course
without editing and interpretation, but in a way that is substantially faithfully to how the
eyewitnesses themselves told it, since the Evangelists were in more or less direct contact
with eyewitnesses, not removed from them by a long process of anonymous transmission
of the traditions” (6). In particularly, Bauckham appeals to the eyewitness testimony of
the fourth Gospel and asserts “In the case of one of the Gospels, that of John, I conclude,
every unfashionably, that an eyewitness wrote it (ibid). More pointedly, Bauckham
argues that “The Gospels were written within living memory of the events they recount.
Mark’s Gospel was written well within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses, while the
other three canonical Gospels were written in the period when living eyewitnesses were
becoming scarce, exactly at the point in time when their testimony would perish with
them were it not put in writing,” he adds further, “this is is a highly significant fact,
entailed not by unusually early datings of the Gospels but by the generally accepted
ones.” (7).

Bauckham proceeds by contending that “the period between the “historical” Jesus and
the Gospels was actually spanned, not by anonymous community transmission, but by
the continuity presence and testimony of the eyewitnesses, who remained the
authoritative sources of their traditions until their deaths, then the usual ways of
thinking of oral tradition are not appropriate at all.” According to Bauckham, “Gospel
traditions did not, for the most part, circulate anonymously but in the name of the
eyewitnesses to whom they were due. Throughout the lifetime of the eyewitnesses,
Christians remained interested in and aware of the ways the eyewitnesses themselves
told their stories.” Finally, Bauckham suggests that, it was principally the work of
eyewitness testimony, not
oral tradition, as commonly proposed that [Gospel] traditions were transmitted (8).

Expanding on Samuel on Byrskog’s thesis in Story as History-History as Story: The

Gospel Tradition in the Context of Acient Oral History (2000), that “the ancient
historians—such as Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus, and Tacitus—were convinced that
true history could be written only while events were still living memory, and they valued
as their sources the oral reports of direct experience of the events by involved
participants in them. Ideally, the historian should have been a participant in the events
he narrates—as, for example, Xenophon, Thucydides, and Josephus were—but, since he
could not have been at all the events he recounts or in all the places he describes, the
historians had also to rely on eyewitnesses whose living voices he could hear and whom
he could question himself: “Autopsy [eyewitness testimony] was the essential means to
reach back into the past” (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 8-9; Byrskog, Story, 64).
According to Byrskog, as Bauckham reports, “For Greek and Roman historians, the ideal
eyewitness was not the disappassionate observer but one who, as a participant, had been
closest to the events and whose direct experience enabled him to understand and
interpret the significance of what he had seen.” In addition, he remarks, “The historians
“preferred the eyewitness who was socially involved or, even better, had been actively
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
participating in the events.” It is also observed that “involvement was not an obstacle to a
correct understanding of what they perceived as historical truth. It was rather the
essential means to a correct understanding of what had really happened” (Story, 214-20,
167, 154, 149; Jesus aand the Eyewitnesses, 9).

Interestingly, Bauckham observes, “The coinherence of fact and meaning, empirical

report and engaged interpretation, was not a problem for these historians. Eyewitnesses
were “as much interpreters as observers.” Their accounts became essential parts of the
historians’ writings. In this way, these ancient historians’ approach bears quite close
comparison with modern oral history… it is also important to realize that a person
involved remembers better than a disinterested observer” (Story, 18, 165-66, Jesus and
the Eyewitnesses, 9-10).

After discussing the key role of eyewitness in ancient historiography, Bryskog forcefully
argues that “a similar role must have been played in the formation of the Gospel
traditions and the Gospels themselves by individuals who were qualified to be both
eyewitnesses and informants about the history of Jesus. Byrskog proposes the
eyewitnesses of the Gospels are like the historians and their informants, would have been
involved participants who not only remembered facts but naturally also interpreted in
the process of experiencing and remembering” (304-5). Finally, he concludes that “The
gospels narratives… are thus syntheses of history and story, of the oral history of an
eyewitness and the interpretative and narrativizing procedures of an author” (ibid).

W. D. Davies substantiates the above thesis, by proposing that what Jesus taught was
remembered by his followers and adapted by the churches as the need arose ( W. D.
Davies, Invitation to the New Testament: A Guide to Its Main Witnesses, 115; The
Gospel of John : A Commentary, by Craig S. Keener, 30) . Keener’s careful statement is
worth noteworthy. In reference to the Gospel of Luke, he writes, “Luke thus mentions
that there were already many written narratives before he set out to write one of his own
(Luke 1:1) (The Gospel of John, ibid). He also observes that the genre of the Synoptics
and the Gospel of John are clearly historical biography, nonetheless, “each of the four
canonical gospels applies the biographical genre slightly differently, just as many
different Lives even in Plutarch vary to some degree in content (33).

On the Anonymous Character of the Gospels

In reference to the anonymous character of the four Gospels, more particularly of John’s
Gospel, Andreas Kostenberger observes, “The place to start in assessment of this
question [that is Gospels’ anonymity] is at an understanding of the Gospel genre. It
appears that while the author of such a work [the Gospel of John, for example] did not
explicitly identity himself—perceiving himself as the servant of the larger Christian
community in writing his Gospel—this does not make the document he produces
“anonymous” the way the term would be understood in modern parlance. For literally
the term means “without a name,” which may not merely imply that no name is attached
to a given work, but also that the author of this particular document is genuinely
unknown to its recipients or others. But while “anonymous” may be a fitting label in the
first sense of the term, it is hardly adequate in the second sense. In fact, as the label
“Gospel according to John,” attached early in the second century, clearly attests, the
author (or at least the person on whose authority the work rested) was not an unknown
among the early Christians” (Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary,
and Theological Perspective, 27). Further, Kostenberger suggests that we should read
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009

the Gospel of John “as an apostolic account of a close eye-witness of the events
surrounding Jesus’ earthly ministry. This kind of reading alone can truly claim to use the
Gospel as it was intended to be used by one who wrote it” (ibid). Statements such as “We
have seen seen his glory”? (John 1:14), “the man who saw it [i.e. Jesus’’ crucifixion] has
given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he
testifies so that you may believe (19:35; cf. 21:24).

Below is a clear example of two comparative works: Apostolic character and anonymous
character.

1. The author of the first Gospel of Mark begins his prologue with the following
words: “ the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” (Mk. 1:1)
2. An anonymous author introduces his work as “The Teaching of the Lord through
the Twelve Apostles.” One (# 1) assumes apostolic authority, the other (# 2),
references the twelve as those who have passed on the Jesus tradition (See E.
Earle Ellis, History and Interpretation in New Testament Perspective, 25; cf. J.
P. Audet, La Didache: instructions des apotres, 187-206)

I also make the following observations, beginning with Justin Martyr:

a) Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165)

Reports why the written Gospels were collected. He himself passed on the traditions of
the apostles,
“And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together to one place of all those who
live in cities or in the country and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the
prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the reader has ceased the
president presents admonition and invitation to the imitation of these good things.

b) Athanasius of Alexandra (A.D. 367)

Provided a list of the NT books that were known to him and accepted in the early church.
The Letters of the New Testament were written “according to” a particular author. That
is, an eyewitness or an associate of an eyewitness. He writes,

“Again it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are, the four
Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the
Apostles and Epistles, seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these,
one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The
first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to
the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the
Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and
lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.” (Athanaisus, L, 552)

c) F.F. Bruce on Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

Bruce writes,
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
“The importance of evidence lies in his [Irenaeus’] link with the apostolic age and is his
ecumenical associations. Brought us in Asia Minor at the feet of Polycarp, the disciple of
John, he became the Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, A.D. 180. His writings attest the canonical
recognition of the fourfold Gospel and Acts, of Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col.,
1 and 2 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., and Titus, of 1 Peter and 1 John and of the Revelation. In his
treatise, Against Heresies, III, iii, 8, it is evident that by A.D. 180 the idea of the fourfold
Gospel had become an axiomatic throughout Christendom that it could be referred to as
an established fact as obvious and inevitable and natural as the four cardinal points of
the compass or the four winds. (Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: How We Got
Our English Bible, 109).

2. Do scholars agree that the writers of the NT gospels were eyewitnesses or not?

See also response to # 1

This is carefully demonstrated in two influential works by Birger Gerhardsson:

“The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition” (2001) and “ Memory and Manuscript: Oral
Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity : With
Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity” (1998) .
Not only Gerhardssson has rigorously demonstrated that the Gospels were the work of
Eyewitnesses, but also explains the process by which oral tradition and written
transmission were transmitted in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. For example
he provides three basic contexts whereby Jesus’ words were preserved by the first
century Christians. First “…People found it natural to recite Jesus texts in the worship
services (i.e. the Lord’s Supper was probably used at sacred meals. The oldest form of the
passion history was utilized as well [1 Cor 11:26]). Second, It is also possible that certain
memorized Jesus texts—logia first of all—were employed in the catechetical instruction
of the early church (it cannot be easily documented). Third, there existed a regular study
of the words of Jesus and the stories of his actions and his fate in early Christianity—a
study in groups or alone—a Christian form of the pious and learned Jewish Torah
studies. Furthermore, Gerhadsoson observes, “In the early Christian communities
believers were occupied (Hebr. Asaq) with the holy scriptures in their own right in order
to participate in divine revelation, which was profitable for wisdom, “for consolation, for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for the training in righteousness” (2 tim 3:16). It
is not hard to imagine that in this study people also used Jesus texts, examined
(eraumaa, anakrinein) them in isolation or in smaller or larger collections” (Birger
Gerhardsson, The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition, 67-68).

In addition, consider what the late F.F. Bruce, former Professor of Biblical Criticism and
Exegesis at the University of Manchester, said about the firsthand testimony
(eyewitness) and the value of the primary sources,

“The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels are not later
than C. AD 60; some of them have even been traced back to notes taken of our Lord’s
teaching while His words were actually being uttered. The oral sources go back to the
very beginning of Christian history. We are, in fact, practically, all the way through in
touch with the evidence of eyewitnesses. The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the
value of this first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and time again. ‘We are
witnesses of these things,’ was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have
been by no means no easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could
remember what had and had not happened. Indeed, the evidence is that the early
Christians were careful to distinguish between sayings of Jesus and their own inferences
or judgments. Paul, for example, when discussing the vexed questions of marriage and
divorce in 1 Corinthians vii, is careful to make this distinction between his own advice on
the subject and the Lord’s decisive ruling: “I, not the Lord,” and again, ‘Not I, but the
Lord.” (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable, 45-46).

He continues to note, “We have then in the Synoptic Gospels, the latest of which was
complete between forty and fifty years after the death of Christ, material which took
place at a still earlier time, some of it even before his death, and which, besides being for
the most first-hand evidence, was transmitted along independent and trustworthy lines.
The Gospels in which this material is embodied agree in their presentation of the basic
facts of the Christian faith—a threefold cord not quickly broken” (46).

Moreover, the writers of the NT, as we know, wrote from the perspective of eyewitnesses,
and used primary sources of eyewitness testimony, consider the following observations:

1. Observation from the Gospels

Luke 1:1-3

1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that
have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to
me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account
for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things
you have been taught.

Luke 3:1

3:1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being
governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of
the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene…

John 19:35

35 He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is
telling the truth—that you also may believe.

21:24,
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has
written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

1. Observation from Acts

2:22

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by
God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst,
as you yourselves know—

26:24-26

24 And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice,
“Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.”
25 But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking
true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak
boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has
not been done in a corner.

2. Observations from 2 Peter

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the
power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

3. Observation from 1 John

1:3

3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may
have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son
Jesus Christ.

3. Were the Roman and Jewish sources you mentioned eyewitnesses or not?

Yes, Flavilus Josephus was a known historian and wrote around that time (C. A.D. 36-
100).

Flavilus Josephus (C. A.D. 36-100): Antiquities 18.63-64

 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
He said of Jesus:

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for
he was a doer of surprising works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with
pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was
the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of principal men among us, had
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he
appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and
ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so
named for him, are not extinct to this day.”

4. Were the Romans and Jewish sources even contemporaries of Jesus? Did they
quote sources who claimed to be eyewitnesses?

See question 3.

Titus Flavilus Josephus ((AD 37 – c. 100)

was a 1st century Jewish historian and a Roman citizen. Josephus was not a
contemporary of Jesus but was of the eyewitnesses and wrote about their time. He
mentions Jesus and James the brother of Jesus (Antiquities, 20, 200). He notes the
condemnation and stoning of James under the high priest Ananus in 62 (Antt. 20, 200;
also The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, by Geird Theissen and Annette Merz,
64-65). The following statement is the very words of Josephus, recounting the events
surrounding the life of Jesus: his trial, crucifixion, resurrection and the early Christians,

“Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.
For he was one who did surprising deeds, and a teacher of such people as accept the
truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah.
When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had
condemned him to be crucified , those who in the first place came to love him did not
give up their affection for him, for on the third day he appeared to them restored to life.
The prophets of God had prophesied this and countless other marvelous things about
him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died
out” (Antiquities 18, 63f. The Historical Jesus, 65-66).

In addition, there were three Roman writers who briefly mentioned the name “Christus”
between 110 and 120 CE. : Pliny the Younger (61-c.120), Tacitus (55/56-c. 120), and
Suetonius (70-c. 130) .Pliny the Younger talks about the Christians and the way he deals
with them for various cultic and political reasons. Tacitus allegedly accuses Christians of
burning Rome in 64 CE. Suetonius mentions the name of “Christ” [Christus] at the
occasion of an expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius (41-54) (For Further
detail on this topic, see “The Non-Christian Sources about Jesus,” in The Historical
Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, 63-89).

Patristic Sources

Below I make some further observations about the church fathers, which I referred to in
my previous response to you. Some were contemporaries of eyewitnesses, others the
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009

disciples of eyewitnesses, for example Papias (ca. 75-140), Irenaeus (ca. 115-ca.200),
Origen (c.185-254),

For example, Papias said he enjoyed listening to the stories of those who were disciples
of the Lord (Jesus), “preferring their oral accounts to anything he had in writing” (David
Laird Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the
Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels, 19). Papias writes,

“I shall not hesitate also to put down for you…whatever things I have at any time
carefully learned from the Elders [designate Jesus’ disciples] whatever things I have at
any time carefully learned from the Elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their
truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in
those that each the truth… If, then any one came (to Hierapolis) who had been a follower

of the Elders, I questioned him in regard to the words (i.e., teachings of the Elders---
what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said, or what by Philip, or by Thomas, or by
James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Disciples of the Lord… For I did
not think that was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came
from the living and abiding voice” ( Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. A.
C. McGiffert, Nice and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, 2nd ser, 171; A History of the Synoptic
Problem, 19). For example, Irenaes (ca. 115-ca. 200) said of Papias, he was “hearer” of
an unusually long-lived disciple of Jesus named John, the son of Zebedee, who spent his
last years in Ephesus after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70.” (A History of the Synoptic
Problem, 18; Irenaeus, adv. Haer. 5.33.4)

Papias and the Gospel of Mark

Papias explains how we got the Gospel of Mark. He said that the Gospel of Mark uses the
“Inclusion of eyewitness testimony to indicate that Peter was its main eyewitness source”
(See Bauchkam’s “The Petrine Perspective in the Gospel of Mark,” in the Jesus and the
Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 155-182). Hence Papias writes,

“This also the Elder used to say: since Mark became the interpreter of Peter, he wrote
accurately though not indeed in order whatever he (Peter) remembered of what was said
or done by the Lord. For he (Mark) neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but
afterwards, as I said (heard and followed) Peter, who made his teachings fit the needs of
the moment, but not as if he (Peter) were making a connected account of the Lord’s
oracles, so that Mark did not sin when he wrote thus some things as he (Peter)
remembered. For he (Mark) was careful of one thing, to leave out none of the things that
he heard (Peter say), nor to falsify any of them. These things are related by Papias
concerning Mark” (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15,; A History of the Synoptic Problem, 19-
20).

It is advisable to read the above statement along with Acts 11.

Papias and the Gospel of Matthew

 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
Of the Gospel of Matthew, Papias “So then Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew
Language and each one interpreted them as he could” ( J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic
Fathers, 265).

a. Who are you referring to? I’m referring to the entire community of biblical historians.
If you can find me one that disagrees with my facts, please give me a name and show me
what evidence he or she has to indicate that my facts are incorrect.

b. How did the writers of the four Gospels report what they did if they were not
themselves eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses? As I wrote above, Matthew and
Luke were mostly copied word-for-word from Mark and the Q source. John doesn’t agree
with the synoptics and is therefore considered inauthentic. Mark is the only “authentic”
document and it’s anonymous. So at best, the author was passing on stories he had
heard. At worst, it could be entirely fictional, like so many other stories of messiahs and
mystics that came out of the Middle East in the first century (see Apollonius of Tyana,
Mithras, etc).

The Gospel of John does not contradict the Synoptics. The author of the fourth Gospel
takes a different approach than the Synoptics, and has given us a highly sophisticated,
historical and theological protrait of Jesus. In many ways he complements Mark,
Matthew and Luke. It is evident to note, however, there exists in John and the Synoptics
Considerable textual, historical and theological differences and similarities The
Synoptics share common sayings of the historical Jesus whereas the Gospel of John
differs greatly and is written independently, in some aspects. Though, all the four
Evangelists wrote from the perspective of eye-witnesses or eyewitness associates.
Nonetheless, John and the Synoptics should be regarded both as both independent and
complementary accounts; witnessing the person and work of Christ. The following
represent what John and the Synoptic do not have in common:

1. John omits Jesus’ baptism, his calling of the twelve disciples, the transfiguration,
Gethsemane, and the institution of the Lord’s Supper
2. John also omits Jesus’ temptation by Satan
3. There are few records of Jesus’ exorcist ministry
4. Parabolic sayings commonly spoken by Jesus
5. Aphoristic sayings
6. John omits the Sermon on the Mount, including the Lord’s Supper while the Synoptic
emphasize them.

Unique to John

1. Only in John do we find Jesus’ miracle of turning water into wine

2. John alone records the death and resurrection of Lazarus
3. Jesus’ (early) ministry in Judea and Samaria
4. John records Jesus’ frequent visit to Jerusalem (at least 3)
5. John’s Gospel includes extended discourses
6. Jesus makes explicit claims to his Sonship and divinity.
7. John employs the concept of “eternal life” instead of “the kingdom of God”
8. John emphasizes “realized eschatology” rather than an eschatology discourse
(commonly found in Mathew, Mark and Luke)
9. The prologue of John is a highly sophisticated piece. It is quite unique.
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009

On the other hand, certain elements and traditions could be found in John and the
Synoptics, respectively. This simply indicates that they are not as different, irreconcilable
or unparallel as many make them to be.

a. Parallels between John and Luke

1. Neither John nor Luke report directly that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan
river. While Jesus’ Baptism is referenced in Luke, it is absent in John.
2. Same characters are mentioned both in John and Luke: the sisters of Mary and
Martha (e.g. Luke 10:38-42; John 11:1-144; 12:1-8), Lazarus is mentioned ( Luke
16: 19-31; John 11:1-44)
3. Only in John and Luke it is assumed that Annas/Caiphas was high priest about
the time of Jesus’ trial (John 18:12-24; cf. Luke 3:2; Acts 4:6)
4. Both John and Luke record that Jesus was pronounced innocent precisely three
times by Pilate (Luke 23:4; 23:14-15; 23:22; cf. John 18:38; 19:4; 19:6)
5. It is only in John and Luke that Barabbas is first mentioned by the crowd …
(John 18:39-40; cf. Luke 23:18-19)
(For further study see “John and Luke: A Parallel Consensus,” in John among the
Gospels, D. Moody Smith [ed], 85-110)

b. John and the Synoptics

Craig Blomberg, in his careful study of the Gospels (The Historical Reliability of the
Gospels) has carefully demonstrated some considerable overlap between John and the
other three Gospels. He stresses both in John and the Synoptics:

1. Attention is given to the ministry of John the Baptist

2. The feeding of the five thousand and walking on the water.
3. Sabbath controversies with the Jews (particularly related to healing the lame and
giving sight to the blind)
4. Jesus’ friendship with Mary and Martha
5. Numerous events surrounding Jesus’ passion
(Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 156; the Historical Reliability of the Gospels,
153-159)

Further, Blomberg observes the most important parallels between John and the
Synoptics include (a) “the description of John the Baptist as the fulfillment of Isaiah
40:3 (‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness…’) and the forerunner of the Messiah
( Jn. 1:23/Mk. 1:2-3 pars.), (b) the contrast between John’s baptism with water and the
Messiah’s coming baptism with the Spirit ( Jn. 1:26-27, 33/Mk. 1:7-8 pars), (c) the
Spirit’s anointing of Jesus as testified by the Baptist (Jn. 1:32/Mk. 1:10 pars.), (d) the
feeding of the 5,000 (Jn. 6:1-15/Mk. 6:32-44 pars.), and (e) the walking on the water ( Jn
6:16-21/Mk. 6:45-52 par.) (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 156). Finally, he
Suggests that “some of the differences between John and the Synoptics can be explained
on the basis of the different audiences within the Gospels’ narrative” (Jesus and the
Gospels, 157.

In respect to eyewitness testimony: Further Observations

 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
Dorothy Sayers, who stresses the creative aspect of the author of the fourth Gospel and
his imagination, asserts,

“It must be remembered that, of the four Evangelists, St. John’s is the only one that
claims to be the direct report of an eyewitness. And to any one accustomed to the
imaginative handling of documents, the internal evidence bears out this claim.” (D.L.
Sayers, The Man Born to be King, 33). In A.D. 185, the late Irenaeus, Bishop in southern
France, wrote that “John, the apostle, one of the Twelve, wrote the Apocalypse on the isle
of Patmos, and after the Gospel [the Gospel of John]. It is also observed that the witness
of Irenaus is critical in understanding the source of the fourth Gospel. Irenaeus, as a
young boy, “sat under the preaching of Polycarp, and Polycarp known the Apostle John”
(E. Earle Ellis, The World of St. John: The Gospel and the Epistles, 13). Further, Ellis
notes, “The case for apostolic authorship (of the Fourth Gospel) is strengthened by
details of history and of places in the Fourth Gospel. A considerable number of them
reflect a remarkable accuracy.” Then, Ellis underlines the following evidence:

1. Aenon, village of many springs, where John baptized (3:23)

2. The pool of Bethesda with its five colonnades (5:2)
3. The pool of Siloam where Jesus sent the blind man (9:7, 11)
4. The Pavement where Pilate rendered his judgment against Jesus (19:13)

Ellis concludes that “all these places have been identified by modern archeological
investigations. These confirmations support the view that the author of the gospel was a
Jew who was intimately acquainted with Palestine in the period before the destruction of
the Jewish state (A.D. 70) (15). From the above considerations, Ellis remarks, one can
suggest, at least, a conclusion concerning the authorship of the gospel and letters of
John. In substance the books represent the teaching of an apostle, an eyewitness, who
had “looked upon and touched with our hands” (1 John 1:1) the One to whom he bears
witness” (17). Andreas Kostenberg, in his introductory work to the Gospel of John
(Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective),
concludes that the author is
1. an apostle
2. the “disciple whom Jesus loved”
3. one of the Twelve but cannot be Peter, Philip, Thomas, Judas Iscariot, or Judas
the son of James
4. one of the seven in John 21:2, but not Simon Peter, Thomas, or Nathaniel
5. either John the son of Zebedee (but not James his brother) or one of the two
“other disciples” mentioned in 21:2 (23).

c. Luke told us that he investigated the Jesus story and spoke directly to those who were
eyewitnesses? And yet, as I mentioned above, scholars agree that Luke is directly copied
word-for-word from Mark and the Q source, so his claim must be fictional
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Date).

Where did the author of Mark get his source from? Did he invent the stories told about
Jesus and his disciples? Is Q a historical document? It cannot be proven.

d. How do you account for the high degree of similarity in the Synoptics? As I mentioned
previously, scholars agree Matthew and Luke were copied directly from Mark and the Q
source.
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009

Great! The fact Matthew and Luke copied from Mark give clear indication that they
trusted the witness of the author of the Gospel of Mark. (Also see responses to questions
1-3 above)

e. Paul told us… well Paul may well have been passing down stories he’d heard. So at best
we can say that Paul passed on stories he was told and believed. HOWEVER - it’s
important to note that NOWHERE in Paul does he claim ANYTHING about Jesus being
a man or ANYTHING about his life as a man. As far as Paul is concerned, Jesus may have
lived 1000 years ago.

There are many allusions in Paul’s letter to the Jesus of History and the Christ of faith
(same person):

1. According to Paul, Jesus was born a Jew. He died and rose from the dead
(Gal. 4:4)
2. He is a descendent of Abraham and David, respectively ( Gal. 3:16; Rom.
1:13
3. Paul references Jesus’ brother, James (Gal. 1:19)
4. He names the disciples who ministered with the earthly Jesus, among
them was Peter who was married (1 Cor. 9:5)
5. Paul knew Jesus was betrayed ( 1 Cor. 11:23),
a) he was crucified (1 Cor. 1:17-18; Gal. 5:11; 6:12; Phil. 2:8; 3:18)
b) Paul observed with other believers the Lord’s Supper Jesus initiated with
his disciples (1 Cor. 11:23-25) and reflects upon this memorial night with
them.
c) Paul reiterates Jesus’ death, burial and triumphal resurrection ( Rom.
4:24-25; 1 Cor. 15:4-8; Rom. 6:4-9)

(See “The “Silence “of Paul? What, If Anything, Did Paul Know about the Jesus of
History? In the Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic
Jesus, 201-233)

Moreover, in several instances in his letters, the apostle Paul claims he was passing on
information he received “from the Lord.” Now the information he shared with other
Christians should be understood as historical facts and the “actual words” ( or even
direct revelations )of the Jesus of history, and the Christ of faith ( See The Jesus Legend:
A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Paul Rhodes Eddy
& Gregory A Boyd, 203).
Consider the following Pauline statements:

d) 1 Corinthians

7:10-11

10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not
separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be
reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
9:14

14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel
should get their living by the gospel.

11.23-25

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on
the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke
it, and said, “This is my body which is for [1] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [2]
25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new
covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

14:37

37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that

the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.

15:1-3

15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, [1] of the gospel I preached to you, which
you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to
the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died
for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

Boyd and Eddy note, “The way Paul speaks of the resurrection suggests that he
understands it to be recent event. In the account of the resurrection that Paul
(interestingly enough) had received and was passing on, he notes that Jesus was buried,
rose three days later, appeared to Cephas (Peter), to “the twelve,” to five hundred- most
of whom were still living when Paul wrote—then to James, to all the apostles, and finally
to Paul himself (1 Cor. 15:4-8). The passage supposes that most of those who saw the
risen Lord were still alive at the time of Paul’s writing. And this suggests that Paul
believed that Jesus lived, died, and rose in the recent past” (The Jesus Legend: A Case
for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, 207).

e) 2 Corinthians

12:9
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,

f) 1 Thessalonians

4:15-17

15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, [1] that we who are alive,
who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice
of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will
rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in
the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Early Christian Creeds or Confessions as Substantial Evidence

There are number of statements, what we rightly call today “creeds” or “confessional
statements” embedded in the letters of Paul. Below I will reference several of these
statements, which predate the Pauline tradition. The majority of these statements which
we will note below were formulated and adopted by early christians, yet some were
created and enhanced by the apostle Paul. These creeds were shared collectively in/by
the early Christian communities of Christ-followers, those who saw the Jewish Scriptures
in continuity with the works of Jesus, professed faith in Jesus and confessed him as
Christ and Lord, and Yawheh as the only true God.

In Romans
1- Jesus Christ is Lord– Rom 10:9

2. Paul’s gospel is the Gospel of God of what God had promised beforehand, a story of
salvation for the human race in continuity with the Holy Scriptures, and in accordance
with what was proclaimed by the prophets of old — Rom 1:1-4

3. God’s righteousness is revealed apart from [the] law, yet is attested by the law and the
prophets… Jesus was publicly displayed by God as a sacrificial atonement for sin so that
God could be proven right and just– Rom 3:21-26

4. We were all a)baptized into Christ [cf. baptized into his death]… b)united in his death
[cf. united in his resurrection]…c)died with Christ [cf. live with Christ]… and c)dead to
sin [cf. alive to God in Christ] — Rom. 6:3-11

5. Believing with the heart results in [one's] justification, confessing with the mouth
results in salvation– Rom 10:8-13
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
I Corinthians

6. Jesus Christ is Lord– I Cor 12:3

7. Christ crucified is the message we proclaim, a stumbling block to both Jews and
Gentiles — I Cor 1:18-25

8. Paul passed on a pre-Pauline tradition, an early creed: (1) Christ died for our sins
according to Israel’s Scriptures, (2)He was buried, (3) He was raised on the third day, (4)
He appeared to to Peter, to the twelve, and eventually to Paul himself– I Cor 15:3-8

II Corinthians
9. a) Christ died for all so we might live for him, not for us… b)If anyone is in Christ, he is
indeed a new creation, his old self has gone, and c) God made Christ sin for us who never
sinned, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God — 2 Cor. 5:14-21

Galatians

10. Jesus Christ gave himself up for our sins so that we might be set free according to
God’s will— Gal 1:3-5

11. (1)Both Jews and Gentiles are not justified by the works of the law, but through faith
in Jesus Christ, (2) If justification is effected through the law, then Christ’s death is
invalid (or null)— Gal 2:15-21

12. Jesus the Son of God came in God’s appointed time; born of a woman, and under the
law, he came with the purpose to effect our redemption who were under the law so that
we might become God’s adopted children- Gal 4:4-5

Ephesians

13. (a)God is abundant in mercy, so loved us even we were dead in our sins glorified us in
Christ Jesus, (b) You have been saved by grace through faith, (c) Salvation is of God, not
your own effort, (d) God has made us and created us in Christ to produce good works in
Christ— Eph 2:4-10

Philippians

14. (a) Let us have the same mind that was in Christ Jesus, (b) Jesus was in God’s form,
(c)disregarded his equal status with God, (d) He emptied himself by being a human, a
servant, taking on himself a human form, and eventually died on a cross, (e) Every knee
in heaven, on earth, and under the earth shall bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
for the Father’s glory- Phil 2:2-11

I Timothy

15. There is one God, one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ who
gave himself a ransom for all — I Tim 2:5-6
 The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Celucien L. Joseph
April 5, 2009
16. Christ Jesus is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords– I
Tim 6:13-15

This post is part of my forthcoming review of Michael J. Gorman’s Reading Paul.The

full summary is located in Chapter 4, “The Power of God for Salvation” : An Overview
of Paul’s Gospel. Gorman outlines what he terms “big ideas in Paul (54-55).

And finally, Paul references to the “Jesus Tradition” in his letters, was at the heart of his
Gospel. He made known those traditions to the ecclesial communities. The most
important quoted references could be found in 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 1 Cor. 7:10-11; 1 Cor.
9:14, and 1 Thess. 4:15-17.

Conclusion

In conclusion the historical reliability of the Gospels lie not solely on the fact of the
deeds and words of Jesus, or even the validity of his historical reality and existence, but
also on the plausibility of eyewitness testimony who handled with care, given and
transmitted to us the Jesus tradition. As a consequence, the historical existence of the
Jesus of history is not a matter of constestation or speculation; rather it is rooted on
historical and verifiable realities of eyewitnesses who were both participants and
interpreters of the Jesus event. What had been said and predicted about the Jewish
Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, had become historical truths in the lived experiences of
Jesus of Nazareth. He incarnated and materialized those prophetic proclamations. Jesus
was followed by many people because they saw in him what was not found in anyone
else in their surrounding; and ultimately after his death his disciples could no longer wait
but to record what they themselves have been involved in, the Jesus story and the Jesus
tradition, which have become today our Gospels and our New Testament.