by Peter Kozushko
In Luke’s Gospel (1:1-4), we read that the events and teachings of Jesus were passed on by eyewitnesses and that his account was informed by these witnesses. Can we take Luke’s claim seriously? Bart Ehrman and his skeptical colleagues doubt it. While they agree that the traditions about Jesus originated from eyewitnesses, the prevailing view among critical scholars, particularly Form-Critics, is that these eyewitnesses had little involvement in the transmission of the tradition after it was first set in motion. From that point, they assume, the Jesus tradition circulated anonymously among early Christian communities for a long period before being written down, far removed from the original witnesses.
This hypothesis was challenged early on. Vincent Taylor, an influential scholar, once quipped, "If the Form-Critics are right, the disciples must have been translated to heaven immediately after the resurrection." However, a significant effort to displace this hypothesis only emerged around the turn of the 21st century. Scholars like Martin Hengel, Samuel Byrskog, and Richard Bauckham have since argued that eyewitness testimony forms the foundation of the Gospels.
Eyewitness Testimony in Greco-Roman Historiography
Byrskog identified a relevant analogy in the practices of Greco-Roman historians. Historians like Thucydides and Polybius emphasized that the best history was contemporary, written within living memory and based on direct eyewitnesses or personal participation. For these historians, oral testimony was the primary means of gathering information, with written sources used only to supplement. Active participants were seen as providing the most reliable accounts, as their memories were rooted in social interest and personal involvement, ensuring greater accuracy.
Byrskog’s study suggests that the Gospel writers, operating within this cultural context, would have similarly valued eyewitness testimony. Luke’s claim to have investigated everything carefully from the beginning aligns with the historiographical conventions of his time. This challenges the form-critical hypothesis, which assumes that the eyewitnesses played little role after initially setting the traditions in motion. Instead, the Gospels reflect a deliberate attempt to preserve firsthand accounts, as the evidence from Greco-Roman history suggests.
Papias and Eyewitness Testimony
Further evidence comes from Papias, a second-century bishop who preferred the "living and surviving voice" over written sources. Papias sought out direct testimonies from those who had been in contact with the Lord’s disciples. He inquired specifically about what Andrew, Peter, or John had said, showing that the teachings were attached to named individuals rather than being anonymous traditions.
Papias’ emphasis on living testimony mirrors the practices of Greco-Roman historians and suggests that eyewitnesses were still active and authoritative sources when the Gospels were composed. This undermines the idea that the traditions about Jesus evolved anonymously within communities over generations. As Bauckham argues, Papias' report shows that these witnesses remained involved, ensuring the integrity of the Jesus tradition well into the time of the Gospel writings.
Peter as a Principal Eyewitness
Who were these eyewitnesses? The Apostle Peter stands out as a key figure. In Acts 1:21-26, Peter takes the lead in selecting a replacement for Judas, emphasizing the need for someone who had been with Jesus from the beginning. Paul also regards Peter as a primary source, as seen in Galatians 1:18, when he consulted Peter (Cephas) in Jerusalem.
Outside the New Testament, Papias reports that Mark was Peter’s interpreter, writing down what Peter remembered of Jesus’ sayings and deeds. Scholars like Hengel and Bauckham have identified several indicators within Mark’s Gospel that support this claim. Mark’s Gospel, therefore, serves as a prime example of how an eyewitness, in this case, Peter, could influence the shape and content of the narrative.
Inclusio of Eyewitness Testimony
One such indicator is the literary device known as the inclusio of eyewitness testimony. In Mark’s Gospel, Peter is the first disciple named (Mark 1:16) and the last to be mentioned (Mark 16:7), effectively bookending the narrative. This suggests that Peter’s witness frames the entire Gospel. Additionally, Peter is frequently mentioned throughout Mark, more than any other disciple, further highlighting his prominence.
The use of inclusio is not unique to Mark. Luke and John also employ this technique. In Luke, Peter is introduced early (Luke 4:38) and mentioned near the end (Luke 24:34), reinforcing his role as a foundational witness. In John, both Peter and the Beloved Disciple form a double inclusio, with their names appearing at critical points in the narrative. This suggests that both disciples served as eyewitnesses whose testimonies were integral to shaping their respective Gospel accounts.
Inclusio—Convention, Not Invention
But is this literary device an invention of the Gospel writers, or was it a recognized convention in ancient literature? Bauckham explores whether similar uses of inclusio appear in other works of antiquity. He identifies examples in Greco-Roman biographies, such as Polybius’ account of Scipio, where Gaius Laelius, Scipio’s close associate, is the first and last person named besides Scipio. This pattern mirrors the inclusio in Mark’s Gospel.
Further, in Lucian’s Alexander or the False Prophet and Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus, we see similar framing techniques that highlight key witnesses or associates of the central figure. These parallels suggest that the inclusio was a recognized literary device used to indicate the primary sources of information, reinforcing the reliability of the account.
Therefore, the use of inclusio in the Gospels aligns with contemporary literary practices, strengthening the argument that the Gospel writers were intentionally signaling their reliance on eyewitness testimony rather than inventing a new method of storytelling.
Other Eyewitnesses and the Twelve
While Peter was likely the principal source for Mark, traces of other eyewitnesses are present in the Gospels. The lists of the Twelve apostles are carefully preserved, suggesting they were the official guarantors of the core Jesus tradition. Non-apostolic individuals, like Cleopas (Luke 24:18), are named, likely because they contributed their own eyewitness accounts. These lists reflect an intentional effort to preserve the authenticity of the tradition.
Luke’s Gospel uniquely mentions women who followed Jesus from early in his ministry (Luke 8:1-3). These women are named again at the resurrection (Luke 24:10), forming another inclusio. Their presence indicates that they, too, served as important eyewitnesses whose testimonies were integral to the Gospel narratives. The combination of male and female witnesses demonstrates the robustness of the testimony and highlights the comprehensive nature of the Gospel’s source material.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are compelling reasons to believe that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. The practices of Greco-Roman historiography, Papias’s emphasis on living voices, and internal literary features like the inclusio all point to a conscious effort by the Gospel writers to base their accounts on direct witnesses. The form-critical hypothesis, which claims the Gospels emerged from anonymous communal traditions, fails to account for the substantial evidence supporting the role of eyewitnesses. Instead, the eyewitnesses remained active within the early Christian communities, ensuring the accurate transmission of Jesus' teachings and deeds.
The Gospels, therefore, are not the products of detached, evolving tradition but are grounded in the memories and testimonies of those who knew Jesus personally. As such, we can have confidence in the historical reliability of the Gospels, knowing they are rooted in firsthand accounts of the life and ministry of Christ.
-----
Key Sources:
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Second. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017.
Byrskog, Samuel. Story as History—History as Story. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 2000.
Shanks, Monte A. Papias and The New Testament. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013.
-----
Peter Kozushko (DMIN Acadia University) is Senior Associate Pastor of Countryside Community Church, Sherwood OR.
Related Resources
Mind the gap: the role of eyewitness testimony, orality, and memory in the development of the Gospel tradition – Chapter One. Kozushko's doctoral dissertation:
So Bart Ehrman is Right about Discrepancies in the Gospels? by Peter Kozushko
Plausible Solutions to Gospel Discrepancies by Peter Kozushko