Book Review: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham

Another common claim made by followers of form criticism is that the Gospels were anonymous. Although it is true that the authors of the Gospels do not name themselves in the text, the idea that the Gospel authors were unknown is not historically defensible. In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Bauckham gives three arguments to defend the fact that the Gospel authors were known in the the Christian community from the beginning. The easiest of these, and I think sufficient to prove the point, is that the current titles of the Gospels are the only ones that we know of. It is very difficult to believe that these titles were added at some later date after they were spread around the known world. How would that even be possible? It is much more reasonable to believe they were the original names given to these documents.

Again the universality of these ascriptions of authorship and the fact that they seem never to have been disputed indicate that they became established usage as soon as the Gospels were circulating. (p. 304)

Probably the most well-known topic in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is Bauckham's defense of the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts based upon the names used in the documents. The names of Jews and frequency of the usage of each name in the Gospels and Acts line up very closely with the general population of Palestine at the time, but not with the names of Jews in the Diaspora (living outside Palestine). No one could make up these names and be this accurate. The names, at least, must be accurate and not later additions.

Another indication of this is the use of disambiguators. About half the population were called by only a dozen names, so most people needed a way to distinguish themselves from others with the same name. This was done by using nicknames or mentioning their father. For instance Simon (a very popular name at the time) was called Peter, and James and John were referred to by the nicknames "Sons of Thunder" or "the sons of Zebedee". The historically correct use of disambiguators throughout the Gospels strongly supports the belief that the names are accurate.

For more information on this topic see What's in a Name? The Names of the Disciples.

Bauckham points out that many of the people that are anonymous in the Gospel of Mark are no longer anonymous in the Gospel of John. If the names of eyewitnesses was so important to ancient historians then why are some important people left anonymous in the earlier Gospels? In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Bauckham argues that these people were likely in danger from the Jewish leadership.

For instance, in Mark we learn that someone cut off an ear with a sword during the arrest of Jesus. This would be an action worthy of punishment and thus the person is left anonymous to protect his identity. But in the Gospel of John we learn that this person was Peter. By the time the Gospel of John was written it is likely that Peter had already died. There was no longer any need to protect his identity.

Bauckham gives multiple examples of anonymous people in Mark who could have been in danger if their names were revealed. This fact supports both the authenticity of the Gospel of Mark and the early dating of the Gospel.

In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Bauckham argues that the listing of the Twelve near the beginning of each of the Gospels is a sign that they were the primary protectors of the traditions of Jesus. He notes that the names are listed in a way that makes them easy to memorize and also points out that their epithets are exactly what you would expect to help distinguish one member from another.

I find his argument to be a very reasonable assumption although not necessarily provable. Who better to protect the accounts about Christ than those who traveled with Him throughout His ministry? I think it is extremely likely that they carefully protected the accuracy of these stories since they believed they were the most important events in history. This leads to the next few key points in this book.

Ancient historians thought that the best witnesses are those who experienced the events from beginning to end. They used special techniques to highlight these eyewitnesses in their documents without actually naming who the eyewitnesses where. Bauckham describes these techniques and demonstrates their use in the writings of Lucian and Porphyry. One common technique was the "inclusio", where the person is named at the beginning and end of their eyewitness account.

Mark uses this device to show that Peter was his main source. Luke also points to Peter and to the woman who followed Jesus. Matthew was himself an eyewitness. John points to the Beloved Disciple as the primary source and author, but acknowledges Peter as also important, but slightly less.

Many people incorrectly envision the gospel stories going through a process similar to the children's telephone game. One person whispers a sentence into the ear of another person then they pass that on to the next and so forth until they get to the last person. Then that person tells you what they heard and it is usually something funny and totally different from the original sentence.

Instead we should picture a formally controlled process. Here are some good reasons given by Bauckham to believe the stories were preserved accurately:

1. First of all, the whole process is being overseen by the twelve and other eyewitnesses. If anyone gets an account wrong, the twelve step in to correct it. These eyewitnesses were around until the accounts were written down.
2. The early Christians believed their traditions were about the most important event in history. They would have been very careful to preserve it accurately.
3. The fact that Jesus sent the the disciples out to teach, strongly suggests that they had already memorized His teachings before He died.
4. The variations we see in the Gospels fit into the normal variations we would expect: Jesus may have varied his teachings from place to place; the accounts needed to be translated from Aramaic to Greek and different people could have translated them differently; and the writers may have made slight changes to the accounts to fit them into their narrative.
5. It is highly likely that some or all of the traditions were written down before being collected into the Gospels. The Christian community included scribes. Matthew almost certainly could write and most likely took notes of Jesus' teachings.

A significant portion of the book is dedicated to the Gospel of John. Bauckham, in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, argues that the Gospel of John is a very carefully constructed narative and that it clearly points to the Beloved Disciple as the author. Some interesting facts I learned in these chapters were:

• The Epilogue and the Prologue are designed to balance each other. The Prologue is 496 syllables describing what happened before the Gospel accounts and the Epilogue is 496 words talking about what is going to happen. The overall complexity of the Epilogue and the way it is designed to balance the Prologue strongly suggests that the whole document was written by one author and this author claims to be the Beloved Disciple.
• The Beloved Disciple is shown as the ideal witness, while Peter is portrayed as the future leader. The Beloved Disciple makes it very clear that he personally saw most of the events he describes.

Bauckham presents extensive arguments for why he thinks the Beloved Disciple is not John the Son of Zebedee but rather a lesser known follower of Jesus named John the Elder. I do agree with Bauckham that since Mark and Luke are not written by members of the Twelve, then it would not be a big issue if John was written by someone other than John the Son of Zebedee as long as the author was an actual eyewitness. Nevertheless, none of the arguments are convincing enough to me to override the traditional view that the author is John the Son of Zebedee.