Think Wink.

Two weeks ago, I received in the mail Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Dr. Richard Bauckham. Having read the first seven chapters of the book, I must say that I am so impressed that I want to begin my review of the book already.

Before I get into the arguments of the book itself (referred to here on out as J&E), I want to put out there what this book is not. This book is a book arguing for the historical reliability of the canonical NT Gospels. This is not an attempt to defend or attack inerrancy doctrines. Reliable texts from an historical standpoint does not mean texts that have been transmitted throughout the centuries without errors. However, I think that this book can open the door for 1.) the crafting of an inerrancy doctrine and 2.) those who believe in inerrancy and those who don’t but still believe that this is the very word of God and that it is infallible can come together around. Whether one believes that there is errors in the text or not does not mean that we don’t have reliable witnesses to Jesus Christ and his work and ministry. The following excerpt is from page 4 and I think really helps explain Bauckham’s goal in J&E,

Here, then, is the dilemma that has always faced Christian theology in the light of the quest of the historical Jesus. Must history and theology part company at this point where Christan faith’s investment in history is at its most vital? Must we settle for trusting the Gospels for out access to the Jesus in whom Christians believe, while leaving the historians to construct a historical Jesus based upon only what they can verify for themselves by critical historical methods? I think there is a better way forward, a way in which theology and history may meet in the historical Jesus instead of parting company there. In this book I am making a first attempt to lay out some of the evidence and methods for it. Its key category is testimony.

What Bauckham is arguing, taking his cue from Samuel Byrskog’s work published in 2000 entitled Story as History–History as Story, is that the four canonical Gospels are eyewitness testimony of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are collections of eyewitness testimony while John is written by an actual eyewitness.

In chapter 2, Bauckham takes the reader on a survey of ancient historical works and notes that the most credible works were ones that incorporated eyewitness testimony. What makes Josehus’ account of the Jewish War with Rome in 66-73 CE is that Josephus was there, and on both sides. The same thing goes for Xenophon’s work, what makes it so credible is that he was there writing what he experienced. The church historian and gospel tradition collector Papias was no exception to this. When he wrote his text on Gospel traditions he sought out eyewitnesses, namely eyewitnesses who were alive and experienced Jesus first-hand. If he could not interview them, he would interview the disciples of those eyewitnesses. Bauckham argues that Papias did this collecting about the same time Matthew and Luke were being written (late 70s early 80s CE). Thus it is concluded that the Gospel writers had this same preference that both Papias and their historian contemporaries had, living oral testimony over written testimony. One point of note that I had not realized is that oral tradition in the ancient world is not what we consider it today. Today, something becomes tradition after at least one generation of promulgating orally an event. Today, scholarship believes that the stories of Jesus in the gospels have several generations transmitting and shaping these events before they were redacted into the four Gospels. Oral history is not like oral tradition. Oral history does not have the development of several generations but there is very little time from event’s transmission to collection and being penned down. Bauckham also points out that ancient writers used the Greek term paradosis to not refer to what is today called tradition but oral history. Here is a pair of quotes from Josephus to get the point accross that he presents on pages 36-37,

[I kept a written] record of all that went on under my eyes in the Roman camp, and was alone in a position to understand the information brought by deserters. Then, in leisure which Rome afforded me, with all my materials in readiness…, at last I committed to writing my narrative of the events (epoiesamen ton praxeon ten paradosin). So confident was I of its veracity that I presumed to take as my witnesses, before all others, the commanders-in-chief of the war, Vespasian…(c. AP. 1.49-50)

I presented the volumes to the Emperors themselves, when the events had hardly passed out of sight, conscious as I was that I had preserved the true story (teterkoti ten tes aletheias paradosin). I expected to receive the testimony to my accuracy, and I was not disappointed (LIfe 361, tr. H. St. J. Thackeray)

In chapter 3-5, Bauckham surveys some of the names found in the Gospels. In chapter 3 Bauckham examines the names and compares them with the other Gospels. He observes that in some stories, the name of someone being healed will appear in Gospel A but not in Gospel B (ex. Bartimaeus in Mark 10) and he asks the question “why?”. His answer is that Gospel A received the story from the person who was healed and the person from Gospel B recieved the story from a source that did not have the name. The name is a testimony to the authenticity of the source being from the actual witness. Or consider in Mark 15:21, “The soldiers forced a passerby to carry his cross, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country (he was the father of Alexander and Rufus).” Why does Mark add the names of Simon’s sons if all Mark wanted to do is to distinguish Simon of Cyrene from Simon Peter? Isn’t saying that he is “Simon of Cyrene” enough like Matthew and Luke do? Bauchkam argues that the reason for Mark including this into the text is so that his readers know Alexander and Rufus and can go to them to validate the story.

In chapter 4 Bauchkam says that the names found in the gospels fits well with what is known about Palestinian names in 1st century Judea. The objection often raised about the gospels is that the names of individuals are later additions to the text. Bauckham notes this just doesn’t fit how people are named in 1st c. Palestine. Names and patters are too precise. In chapter 5 Bauckham defends the lists of the Twelve in the gospels. It has been argued that because the lists don’t agree in terms of order or in terms of names that the Twelve lost their significance in the church. Bauckham says that just isn’t the case. He makes the case that the lists are using nicknames and the like to identify the same persons (FYI: Bauckham argues that Thomas is not the person’s real name but a nickname that matches meaning with Dydimus).

In Part two I will cover Bauckham’s material over chapters 6-9 which focuses primarily Mark but includes the Synoptics. Part three will discuss oral tradition eyewitness testimony discussed in chapters 10-13. Then Part 4 will round out the discussion on the Gospels with Bauckham’s discussion of John found in chapters 14-17. Part five will conclude the review with chapter 18 and my own thoughts on the book.

Related posts:

The Next Book I Am Going to Get…

Some Thoughts on John

We Are Kings!