Blog

So many times we hear from those we try to share the good news of Christ with that the gospels are just hearsay, written long after the time of Jesus, and are not eyewitness accounts.  Where do they get this idea?  They get it from many modern scholars, but not from the actual evidence of the text! They conclude that the gospel accounts are unreliable.  Is this conclusion justified?

The idea that the gospels are documents that are far removed from original eye witnesses by a long process of anonymous communication of oral tradition is a popular idea today.  Some modern scholars also view the gospels accounts as simply folklore, with little regard for accurate history.

But the actual evidence shows that the period between the time Jesus walked the earth and the writing of the gospels was bridged by continuous testimony of eyewitnesses who were sources of authoritative and authentic history.  Ancient first and second century historians, such as Thucydides, Josephus, and Tacitus valued firsthand eyewitness testimony.  For these and others writing history in those days, the ideal eyewitness was not some detached news observer, but one who was intimately involved with the events reported and could understand what was going on.

The gospels had just these kinds of eyewitnesses, as can be seen from the evidence of the text itself, which ironically, many critics claim to go by.  For example, there are sworn eyewitness testimonies from most of the New Testament writers, which indicate that they were intending to transmit accurate history rather than conjured-up folktales:

• “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).
• “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” (1 John 1:1)
• “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).
• “And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe” (John 19:35).
• “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24)
• “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea” (Luke 3:1).
• “I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely, for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him, for this thing was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:25-26).
• “Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22).
• This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses.” (Acts 2:32)
• “For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (2 Corinthians 2:17).
• “After that he {Jesus} was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.  After that, he was seen of  above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present…” (1 Corinthians 15:5-6)

So the evidence of the text would make these writers liars, if they were just making up folktales.  Remember, most of them were persecuted and/or martyred, and martyrs make very poor liars!

We also have testimony from the early church fathers some of whom personally knew and were pupils of the original disciples .  One of these is Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis,  who wrote near the beginning of the first century, and so was in a much better position than modern scholars to know about how the gospels were written.   We don’t have an manuscript of his writings, but we do have portions of them surviving as quotes in later writers such as Eusebius of Caesarea.  Even though Eusebius had a low opinion of Papias, this was mostly because Papias believed in a literal millennial kingdom and Eusebius disagreed with this view.  His writings, entitled Exposition of the Logia of the Lord, remain extremely valuable because of their early date and the fact that he reports about an even earlier period when the gospels were written.  From his writings we can deduce that there were specific named eyewitnesses that were transmitters and authoritative sources of oral tradition.  Papias valued personal eyewitness testimony, and he likely knew some of the original disciples such as Philip and John.  Here are some excerpts from the prologue to his work:

”  I shall not hesitate also to put into properly ordered form for you everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down well, for the truth of which I vouch…I inquired about the words of the elders, what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, were saying.  For I did not thing that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3-39.3-4)

Like Papias, Luke in his prologue also valued eyewitness sources: “For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to thee, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke 1:1-3)

Luke in his gospel also gives many facts that demonstrate that he got his information from those who had first-hand on-the-scene knowledge.

Josh McDowell lists evidences for Luke’s accuracy compiled by Roman historian Colin Hemer, a noted Roman historian: “Specialized details, which would not be known except to a contemporary researcher. . .details include exact titles of officials, identification of army units. . .correlation of dates of known kings and governors within the chronology of the narrative. . .‘undesigned coincidences’ between Acts and the Pauline Epistles. . .off-hand geographical references that bespeak familiarity with common knowledge.”[1]

McDowell notes that many times historians thought Luke was in error on some points, only to be proven wrong by an archaeological discovery. For example:

• Luke spoke of Philippi as a “part” or “district” of Macedonia. It was believed he erred because the Greek word meris did not mean “district.” Archaeological evidence unearthed showed, however, that “district” was the exact meaning of the Greek word meris that Luke had used.
• Luke referred to Lysanias the Tetrarch of Abilene in his Gospel. Because the only known Lysanias to historians was killed in 36 B.C., Luke was thought to be in error. Then an inscription was found bearing the name of Lysanias the Tetrarch and dated between 14 and 29 A.D., just at the right time period.
• Luke was thought to be wrong about the census taken at the time of Christ, because critics said there was no evidence of a census and that the governor called Quirinius was in power too late, 6 A.D., to be in his position at the time of Christ. They also stated that it was not required for the people to return to their birth homes. But archaeology showed that in fact these censuses were done regularly and that one was indeed taken at the time of Christ and, furthermore, that Quirinius was governor a second time, in 7 B.C. They also found evidence on a papyrus document showing that during the censuses people were required to return to their own homes and countries.[2][3]
• Luke referred to the Philippian officials as praetors, when some scholars thought the titles should be duumvirs, but archaeological finds showed that in fact praetors was the right title for the Roman magistrates of the colony.
• Luke used the title politarchs for the Thessalonian officials, but since this title was not found in the classical literature Luke was again assumed to be wrong. Then several inscriptions were found that used the title politarchs, and five of them referred to Thessalonica.[4]

There are many more examples of these findings, where Luke was right and the critics were wrong.

Evidence of eyewitness testimony can likewise be found in the gospel of John:

John is often portrayed by critics as being very theological with little concern for accurate history. But this view is totally against both the internal evidence of the text and against archaeological discovery. John mentions many historical details that would only be known by a personal witness living at the time and would probably be irrelevant to a later audience. Paul Barnett lists some examples of these:[5]

• John described the Pool of Bethesda as having five porticoes (John 5:2). When the actual pool was unearthed, sure enough, there were exactly five porticoes.
• The Pool of Siloam mentioned by John has also been discovered (John 9:7).
• John describes Jacob’s well with familiarity (John 4:4, 11, 19). This well has been discovered also and fits John’s description and location.[6]
• John includes a side reference not vital to the narrative, in chapter 10:22–23: “It was at Jerusalem, the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch.” Barnett comments: “The Maccabean feast of dedication occurs in winter, just as Christmas in Australia occurs in mid-summer. Jesus seeks shelter from the weather in a particular place, Solomon’s porch, which is part of the temple of Herod. If someone wrote of a person seeking shelter from the sun on Christmas day in the Bennelong restaurant in the Sydney Opera House, it would be reasonable to conclude that he had first–hand knowledge of the Australian climate and of a Sydney landmark in the period after the year 1973 when the opera house was completed. We conclude that the author of this Gospel had first-hand understanding of the climate of Judaea and of the architecture of the temple in the period before A.D. 70 when it was destroyed”[7] (emphasis mine).
• Furthermore, John shows a familiarity with the local geography which indicates he was an eyewitness and not someone writing at a later time period. In fact, John mentions about a dozen places not referred to in the other Gospels. After listing some of these, including the above mentioned Pool of Siloam and the Kidron Valley (John 18:1), Barnett refers the reader to a quote from Meyers and Strange: “The point we wish to make. . .is simply that an unprejudiced reading of the Gospel of John seems to suggest that it is in fact based on a historical and geographical tradition, though not one that simply repeats information from the synoptics.”[8] (emphasis mine).
• Barnett also demonstrates that the historical references in the Gospel of John fit the context of the times[9] and that the details of the lives of the various people he mentions suggest first–hand, authentic history.[10] Barnett sums up the evidence for the historical character and the reliability of the Gospel of John: “Is the fourth gospel historical in character? The wealth of information relating to places, to the specific content of the pre-A.D. 70 period and the details about named individuals require our acknowledgment that this piece of literature is genuinely historical”[11] (emphasis mine).

When an author is shown to be trustworthy in areas where he can be tested, this should increase our confidence in all of his writing.

We can also look at the gospel of Mark, believed by most to be the earliest gospel. The internal evidence shows details indicating an eyewitness account.   For example, in the account of the storm at sea, (Mark 8:23-27) Mark, writing in his action oriented style, gives details such as : ‘The waves beat into the ship,m so that it was now full” ” and he {Jesus} was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow”.  According to several church fathers, including Papias, Mark’s gospel was written as the eyewitness memoirs of Peter.   Another example is the account of the demon-possessed man in Mark 5:2-5.  He describes how the man pulled apart his chains and broke them in pieces, and how he would cry out and cut himself with stones.  The details do not seem contrived, but rather mentioned matter-of -factly in passing by the writer, as someone who was giving on-the-scene recollections would. There are many, many more examples of this kind of detail in Mark’s gospel.

We also have internal evidence of a very short line of transmission between the disciples and the time of the writing of the gospels and Paul’s letters.   Tradition was handed on to qualified persons, who were either named as individuals, or as a group such as “the twelve”.  Besides Luke 1:1-3 above, more examples include:

” As they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” (Acts 16:4)

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you.” (1 Cor 11:2)

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night he was betrayed took bread…” (1 Cor. 11:23)

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures…” (1 Cor 15:3-4)

” How shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him.” (Hebrews 2:3)

“…It was needful for me to write to you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3)

So we can see, regardless of the dating of the gospels and other writings of the New Testament, the chain of transmission was short, and in the hands of reliable eyewitnesses.  Even folklorists have noted that the time span between the events of the gospels and their writing down is much shorter than any other traditions they have accounted folklore and legends {12}.  And they have also recognized that there are different types of tradition in oral societies, some treated as tales and some as real history {13}

For an excellent reference on this subject, see Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses {12}.  This scholarly work gives extensive evidence that the gospels were eyewitness accounts, including the evidence of names that were popular in the first century, that are used in the gospel accounts, and not in later times {14}, and many other lines of literary and historical evidence.

I think by now we can see that we have eyewitness testimony for the facts about Jesus and the Gospel, not hearsay and folk tales!