Several of the accounts in the New Testament claim to have been written by eye witnesses. Eye witness testimony is very strong in examining any historical event. Think about a criminal trial. If the prosecutors have a witness that can say “I saw him do it”, it is really powerful. That kind of testimony will win most cases.
Example from the NT: Luke 1:1-4 (ESV)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 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, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Luke tells us that he investigated the story of Jesus using eyewitnesses.
Example from the NT: Acts 16:11-13 (ESV)
So, setting sail from Troas, we made a direct voyage to Samothrace, and the following day to Neapolis, and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days. And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together.
Luke used the 1st person pronoun “we” in the book of Acts for those parts of the accounts that he was actually there for.
Example from the NT: John 1:14 (ESV)
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John says in effect, this is true because I saw Jesus – I knew the man and I know Him as God.
Example from the NT: John 21:24-25 (ESV)
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. Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Again, John tells why we should believe him. He was actually there. His testimony is eyewitness testimony.
Example from the NT: 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 (ESV)
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
Paul may not have been an eyewitness to the life of Jesus during his ministry, but he considered the testimony of those who knew him and witnessed the resurrected Jesus critical.
Example from the NT: 1 John 1:1-4 (ESV)
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 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. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
John again says “I know this is true, because I was there. I saw and that is what I teach you.”
Example from the NT: 2 Peter 1:16-18 (ESV)
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. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
Peter says in effect, “I was there with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. I heard the voice that spoke from the clouds. My testimony is that of an eyewitness.”
It is interesting that most of the authors accepted by the early church for the New Testament books are now rejected by many modern scholars. I have written blogs showing why I think that both Mark and Luke did actually write the gospels attributed to them by the early church. I contend that Jesus’ disciples, Matthew and John were the authors of the gospels attributed to them as well. (https://isjesusalive.com/the-apostle-john-wrote-john/?fbclid=IwAR1U5y15Ub2O92zIfb9o_x3j-nV1khlnFp854tAkRVDqpF2zGUgCzWYknVI for good site on John as author) We recognize that the fact that a particular book claims to be written by a well-known eyewitness does) not make it so. A whole series of 2nd to 4th century writings known as “pseudepigraphs” claim to have been written by eyewitnesses of Jesus or early Christianity. (Figure 1). Though scholars all agree that these were not written early enough to consider their claims seriously, the writers were not shy about their claims. They contrast with the New Testament gospels that actually make no direct claims of who wrote them and though they are anonymous, all ancient sources agree on their authorship.
Figure 1: Timeline for NT Gospels vs. 32 apocryphal writings (works of unknown authorship or of doubtful origin) and pseudepigraphs (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author). Notice that these are all 2nd and 3rd century works. A few scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas was early, but most consider it much later. Interestingly, some scholars whom I would consider more liberal do consider this work to include material that originated very early and thus provides an independent attestation of some material from the gospels. Scholars agree that none of these books have any new authentic material about Jesus. (Dates from Wikipedia except for Gospels).
The claim is made that the New Testament documents are not really historical accounts. In part that is true. They were not written just to record historical events. The writer’s purposes varied but included various degrees of evangelism (particularly the gospels) and to strengthen the faith of the churches. That does not mean that they were free to create or manipulate the history that they included. Some modern writers suggest that the early readers really did not care about eyewitness reports. These modern writers claim that the early believers were all superstitious, gullible and easily persuaded to accept whatever they were told. Some would make them caught up in emotional or social aspects such that the historical nature of the stories was insignificant. Is that true? Many certainly were willing to die for their faith. Were they willing to die for a faith without ever having examined evidence? Did no one actually check into the authenticity of the stories? If the gospels and Paul’s letters were written when my studies suggest, then people were around who could have refuted them. Did the believers not want to go to the trouble? Admittedly, Google was not available, but surely some people were interested.
The scholarly late dates for the gospels and the view that the early believers did not value and check the veracity of the accounts is derived from particular models for the origin of Christianity. These models assert that the Christian faith developed and morphed dramatically over time. Some claim that Jesus’ miracles and the resurrection were added late. If these were added late, then the books were written late as well. Is this model supported by data? I suggest that while this is a model that perhaps has some data to support it, critical bits are not supported and we have data that flat contradicts it.
Interaction with eyewitnesses facilitated by travel of apostles and early believers
The Apostle Paul is credited with evangelizing what is now Turkey, Greece and helping in Rome. Paul was not an eye-witness of the preaching of Jesus, his earthly miracles, or his death and resurrection. Some see Christianity outside of Israel as resulting primarily from Paul’s work and being cut off from its roots in Israel. That is not the picture that comes from the NT or from writings of early Christians. All of the early sources record that the 12 (Jesus’ first disciples who became known as apostles) traveled widely. They traveled through the Roman empire and even have Thomas spreading the gospel to India. The travels of the apostles are important because they provided opportunities for new believers through the early spread of Christianity to interact with the eyewitnesses. Paul recorded a visit from Peter in Antioch and early traditions support the case that both Peter and Paul died in Rome. Early traditions also suggest that some of the men from Acts 6, often considered the first deacons travelled widely spreading the gospel. Such traditions also indicate that other disciples also traveled, beyond the 12 apostles. Thus, we can say with reasonable certainty that many Christians from around the new movement had opportunity to question the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life on earth, and about His death and His resurrection.
Reports confirm that at least some early believers did highly value the testimony of those first witnesses. In one report recorded in First Corinthians 15, Paul recounted an early Christian creed about Jesus death and resurrection. (See my post on the “First account of the Resurrection: https://jesusinhistoryandscience.com/?p=1463). A key part was to appeal to the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Paul wrote in 55 AD: “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.” (1 Corinthians 15:6 ESV). This was a direct claim that many of these eyewitnesses were still available for use in checking the story.
Early believers did care and tried to use eyewitnesses as long as they were available
Okay, so the early church had opportunity to examine eyewitnesses. If they did not care, then such opportunities would have been wasted. Is there real evidence to support that the early believers actually did take advantage of such a valuable asset? As it happens, we do have a quote from just such a believer, a man by the name of Papias. We have bits of testimony preserved for a series of the disciples of the Apostle John. (See Figure 2) Irenaeus, an early Christian leader quoted Papias, a bishop (pastor) in what is Turkey today, in his own book. Irenaeus describe Papias this way: “Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him.”
This quote helps to explain how the early church viewed eyewitness testimony:
“I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.” http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
This sounds like the report of a man who was very careful to learn and transmit eyewitness testimony. He had the advantage of meeting and listening to not just one version but the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses.
Figure 2. Timeline that shows the lifetimes of some of the apostles and some of the next generation of disciples, known as the “apostolic fathers”. All but John died as martyrs. The quote given from Papias originated sometime during the darker orange bar with his name. Irenaeus preserved Papias’ writings in his own writings.
A key demand for accepting a book into the NT canon was connection to the Apostles.
Over the last few years, popular writers and skeptics have presented the case that the New Testament books were selected late. They were simply the ones selected from many contenders. This makes for catchy writing that confuses those who don’t know better and aren’t willing to dig in. As Figure 1 shows, the apocryphal and pseudepigraph books are all 2nd century books. The NT books are decidedly earlier. We do have a few other early Christian writings (Figure 3). Why were they not included? A Christian perspective is that the Holy Spirit was guiding the early church in its selection. We do recognize the basic criteria. An essential element had to be a connection to the apostles or to the human brothers of Jesus that became leaders in the early church. The other early books just did not have the confirmation as connected to the apostles. The early church recognized the importance of the apostles as eyewitnesses to Jesus. The NT epistles, the letters from Paul, Peter and John all express concern about false teachers. The authority of the apostles was based on their personal experience with Jesus. Paul noted that he was one “untimely born”, in that his personal experience came after the resurrection. He was nevertheless recognized as a valid apostle based on that personal experience. He also confirmed his experiences with the other apostles (Gal. 1:18-19).
God chose to use humans in the process of selecting the books of the NT and the path was probably not as simple and elegant as some people expect. We don’t know what all information the early church leaders had at hand to help them in their process. It is true that some books were slower to be generally accepted than others. That was because the church examined them very carefully. They wanted to know that the connection to the real Jesus was valid. Books were written over a scattered area and were not available immediately. They couldn’t be quickly downloaded as Kindle books. It took some time for some to spread and to be tested and verified. Even so, the basics of the gospels and the letters of Paul were accepted very quickly. Dr Timothy Jones in his excellent book, Misquoting Truth, summarizes the situation this way:
“At least as early as the 2nd century, there were 20 or so books that were never questioned, and these are the writings that reflect the most essential truths about Jesus.”
Figure 3. Early Christian documents. Several of the books such as I Clement and the writings of Polycarp are good books but were never viewed as authoritative. The Gospel of Barnabas was probably written on the late end of the bar given. No one considers this to have been written by the real Barnabas and it probably should be classified as a Pseudepigraph. The other books were useful but never considered scripture.
Books were rejected that were recognized as late or not written by the authors who claimed to write them.
The early church had to decide which books were to be among the books used and trusted. Those that measured up were part of the canon, a word derived from a measuring reed. What if something didn’t really measure up? The early church looked for the connection to the apostles, bud did they just ignore those that they not really written by the authors that they claimed to be? Figure 1 shows a large number of writings that claimed to be what they are not. Presumably most were written in the name of the early leaders of the church in order to have their ideas accepted. An account be the Apostle Peter is more likely to be accepted than a writing by Leon Nobodyknowsme from Miletus. If the early Christians took the authorship issue seriously, then we should expect that they rejected books that were falsely attributed. Lying is called sin in the Bible and that is just what such a writer would be doing.
Let’s look at some examples that we know of. We get a snapshot of the process in a fragment of text known as the Muratorian fragment, written about 170-180 AD. It contains a list of books that the church accepted, disputed and rejected. The text about one entitled “The Shepherd of Hermes” is interesting and gives a window into the thinking. Here is what it says,
“Hermas composed The Shepherd quite recently- in our times, in the city of Rome, while his brother, Pius the overseer served as overseer of the city of Rome. So while it should indeed be read, it cannot be read publicly for the people of the church- it is counted neither among the Prophets (for their number has been completed) nor among the Apostles (for it is after their time)”
The book is an allegory that was apparently widely distributed and popular in the early church. No one considered it bad but the book could not be considered part of the canon. It could be useful, but it was written too late to be canonical. It had no direct link to apostles. It did not have the authority for the whole church. Notice that the Shepherd of Hermes was not a pseudepigraph. It was anonymous. No one lied by claiming to be an apostle or any other famous believer.
What about those who claimed to be someone else? How did the early church deal with them? We have. a window here too. Serapion, the pastor or bishop of Antioch, around 200 AD was asked to evaluate the book, “The Gospel of Peter”. Here is what he wrote back:
“For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself. But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name, we as experienced persons reject, knowing that no such writings have been handed down to us.” http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/serapion.html
Serapion went on to say that he would personally visit the church to make sure they followed his directions. This snapshot shows that the early church took the authorship of the writings that became the New Testament very seriously. If they felt there was reason to question, they argued against including such books in the canon.
Conclusion
The books of the New Testament claim to be either written by eyewitnesses or by those with close ties to them. Many modern scholars and most skeptics reject this claim. The early church grappled with which books were authentic and authoritative. They examined the books, prayed and investigated using sources that are now lost to us. The modern model says that the stories grew and changed drastically through time. Marcus Borg, one of the “Jesus Seminar” scholars stated this view this way: “The latest layers—which are crystallized in written form in the gospels—do contain memory, but also include decades of development and testimony.” The Jesus Seminar scholars tried to sift through the gospels and choose those portions that they accepted as true. This model assumes that either the early Christians did not really care about the real events or they just didn’t have means or opportunity.
We have seen that the early eyewitnesses traveled over the Mediterranean region and even as far as India. Opportunity was certainly available. Did they use the opportunity? Early Christian leader, Papias, a disciple of the Apostle John, told us that he took every available opportunity to question and learn from the eyewitnesses. We saw that the early church insisted that canonical books be tied back to those in the best place to know the real Jesus. When they identified books that were fakes, they acted to make sure that they were not used. If books were not tied to the apostles, even though they were considered good, they made sure they were not treated as canonical. It is true that we do not have records of the early data that they used to validate the books. We do know that churches over the entire Christian world in the mid-late 2nd century agreed about who the authors of at least 20 of the books of the NT were.
Certainly, the Christian faith grew over time and ideas developed. Paul brought the theology to new levels. By the time John wrote his gospel, he addressed issues and concerns not recognized earlier. Even as the apostles were developing and their faith was growing, the apostles and church anchored their beliefs and lives in the person, teachings and resurrection of Jesus. Just as the early leader, Papias sought and valued the eyewitness testimony, we should not rely on the popular teachers of our day, but go directly to the eyewitness reports recorded in the Bible.
References
Borg, Marcus J., 2013, Evolution of the Word: The New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written (p. 587). HarperOne.
Jones, Timothy Paul, 2007. Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus”, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill.
Recent Comments