Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels

© 2002, 2017 by Darrell L. Bock and Benjamin I. Simpson

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakeracademic.com

Ebook edition created 2017

Ebook corrections 02.10.2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

ISBN 78-1-4934-0041-6

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are the authors’ translations.

Contents

Cover    i

Title Page    iii

Copyright Page    iv

Gospel References by Unit    vii

Preface to the Second Edition    xv

Preface to the First Edition    xvii

Introduction    xix

List of Abbreviations    xxi

Part 1:  The Four Gospels: Distinctive Voices and How We Got Them    1

1. Witnessing the Gospel    5

2. Remembering the Gospel    29

3. Retelling the Gospel    54

4. Overviews of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John    83

Part 2:  Jesus according to the Synoptists    109

5. The Birth and Childhood of Jesus: The Hope of Promise (Matt. 1–2; Luke 1–2)    117

6. The Backdrop to Jesus’s Ministry: John the Baptist, Jesus’s Baptism and Temptations (Matt. 3:1–4:11; Mark 1:1–13; Luke 3:1–4:13)    146

7. The Initial Portrait of Jesus’s Galilean Ministry: Teaching, Healing, and Controversy (Matt. 4:12–25; Mark 1:14–3:19a; Luke 4:14–6:16)    163

8. Jesus’s Teaching on Relating to God and Others: The Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49)    199

9. More Galilean Ministry: Miracles, Mission to the Outcasts, and Discipleship in the Face of Opposition (Matt. 8:1–12:50; Mark 3:19b–35; Luke 7:1–8:3)    235

10. From Kingdom Teaching to Confession: How the Disciples Began to Understand Jesus (Matt. 13:1–16:12; Mark 4:1–8:26; Luke 8:4–9:17)    283

11. Confession and Prediction: The New Reality, Part 1 (Matt. 16:13–18:35; Mark 8:27–9:50; Luke 9:18–50)    317

12. Toward Jerusalem: The New Reality, Part 2 (Luke 9:51–18:14)    339

13. Continuing toward Jerusalem: Ministry in Judea and Final Lessons (Matt. 19:1–21:9; Mark 10:1–11:10; Luke 18:15–19:44)    393

14. The Passion Week: Controversy, Prediction of Judgment and Return, Trial, Death, and Resurrection (Matt. 21:10–28:20; Mark 11:11–16:8; Luke 19:45–24:53)    415

Part 3:  Jesus according to John    517

15. Introducing Jesus in John’s Gospel: The Word Incarnate and the First Witnesses—John the Baptist and the Disciples (John 1)    519

16. The Book of Signs: Before the Hour (John 2–12)    535

17. The Book of Glory: The Farewell Discourse and the Johannine Passion Account—the Hour Has Come (John 13–21)    613

Selected Bibliography    689

Index of Subjects    698

Index of Modern Authors    711

Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Sources    715

Back Cover    741

Gospel References by Unit

The following table identifies the main passages discussed in each unit. To find all the places a particular verse or passage is mentioned, refer to the Scripture index in the back of the book.

References in All Four Gospels

References in John

Preface to the Second Edition

Given the success of the first edition and newly surfacing discussions surrounding the Gospels and their formation, Jim Kinney approached me (Darrell) several years ago about updating this volume. It seemed a good opportunity to address the new parts of Gospel discussion as well as to update the handling of the text. I invited to join the effort Ben Simpson, a New Testament colleague at Dallas Theological Seminary in our Houston extension who also did doctoral work in Jesus studies. The new chapters on background (chaps. 1–3) are substantially his. I expanded and updated the discussions of dating and authorship (chap. 4), and he assumed major responsibility for most of part 1. He also helped to update references in the main section of the text. We took the concluding synthetic section of the first edition and made it into its own volume because we wanted that important synthesis to stand on its own. The two volumes work nicely as a pair, with this volume analyzing the text of each Gospel in detail and that volume presenting a summary of key themes.

The present text-focused volume is not a historical Jesus book, but it does not ignore topics that are part of that discussion. Many notes take up issues that surface in historical Jesus presentations, and the background material is certainly also relevant to that discussion. The goal of this volume is to present the portrait of Jesus we see in each Gospel, showing each evangelist’s distinctive emphases and the areas where the evangelists’ presentations overlap. One thing that makes the Gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, challenging to readers is the mixture of similarities and differences. We pay close attention to this feature as we work our way through the Gospel accounts, and this was the main reason we chose not to present one Gospel at a time. By working with a synopsis and juxtaposing one Gospel with another, we hoped to highlight the similarities and differences in a way that handling each Gospel separately could not achieve. The chart that opens the book can be used to track the discussion of a specific Gospel’s pericopes in their original sequence, thus offering the best of both worlds.

We continue to be grateful to Dallas Theological Seminary for its support. Mark Bailey and Mark Yarbrough deserve thanks for their encouragement of our writing. Appreciation goes to the Houston campus executive leadership team (Bruce Fong, Willie Bolden, and James Pitman) for their support of this project. Joseph Fantin, Mike Burer, Will Johnston, Samuel Chia, Terri Moore, and James Davis need to be added to the names of supportive New Testament colleagues. Thanks also to the staff at the Hendricks Center for Christian Leadership and Cultural Engagement, including Bill Hendricks, Pam Cole, Kymberli Cook, and Mikel Del Rosario. Heather Zimmerman at the Hendricks Center worked on a project that also fed into this work. And thanks to Margaret Anne Raines for carefully reading early drafts of the chapters on testimony, memory, and orality.

Of course we also thank our wives, Sally Bock and Amber Simpson, who put up with much when we undertook this project. Our hope is that the updating of this book will lead readers to a deeper appreciation of the Gospels and the one whose mission they so powerfully describe.

Darrell L. Bock

Benjamin I. Simpson

Preface to the First Edition

This textbook is designed for students taking classes in the Gospels or on the life of Christ and for pastors who wish to study the life and teaching of Jesus. However, it is not a standard life of Christ in that it works directly with a synopsis and separates the examination of the Synoptics from that of John. It pays special attention to the similarities and differences within the Gospel accounts. This material has been used over the last several years in classes at Dallas Theological Seminary, Talbot Theological Seminary, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I have benefited greatly from the feedback that students and pastors have given to me about this material. Some students spent extra time with the material, giving full and direct feedback. They include Greg Herrick, Jim Samra, Brittany Burnette, and Carol Kahil.

Many thanks go to Baker Book House, which proposed that I undertake this work years ago. Special appreciation goes to Jim Weaver, Jim Kinney, and Wells Turner for their encouragement and aid in structuring the book for publication. I also thank the administration of Dallas Theological Seminary, whose creative design of a research professorship for me has allowed me to work on this project while teaching a limited amount of hours in the classroom. So my gratitude goes to Chuck Swindoll, Mark Bailey, John Grassmick, and Harold Hoehner.

My family deserves special mention. Sally, my dear wife, and my children, Elisa, Lara, and Stephen, have sacrificed time with me so that I could complete this responsibility. Elisa also read through the pages with an editor’s eye and a student’s interest to help me shape the volume for the right audience.

This work is dedicated to my full-time colleagues in the New Testament department. Their willingness to free me up to write has made this project possible. More importantly, their fellowship and encouragement have been one of the great joys of my life. I wish that everyone could have the blessing of working alongside such fine people. So my dedication goes out to them with deep appreciation: Harold Hoehner, Buist Fanning, John Grassmick, David Lowery, W. Hall Harris, Dan Wallace, and Jay Smith. Most of us have worked side by side for almost twenty years. Effective ministry takes a team. They have been exceptional partners.

My hope is that this work will help students of Jesus to appreciate even more the message of the four Gospels—in sum and in some of its detail. It is written with the conviction that knowing what God has done through Jesus is life-changing in the fullest sense. No amount of pages or words can convey the depth of what his life meant and means. However, if this work helps to convey even a small token of that truth in an age that needs to embrace Jesus’s message and person, then this labor will be worth every invested hour.

Darrell L. Bock

Introduction

There is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most important historical and religious figures of all time. Today, numerous attempts are under way to search for the historical Jesus in an effort to determine who he really claimed to be and what he actually did. Many of these efforts are quite skeptical about what Scripture tells us about Jesus. Yet it is a fact that the Jesus who has so impacted our world is the one we find presented mainly in these four Gospel portraits of him. This book is not a technical historical Jesus study. It seeks rather to argue that a coherent portrait of Jesus emerges from the canonical Gospels that is rooted in history and yet has produced its own historical-cultural impact because of the portrait these four Gospels give of him.

The premise of this study is that too few people, much less students of the Gospels, are familiar enough with the Gospel accounts as they stand. Nor are they sufficiently aware of the Gospels’ first-century roots to fully appreciate their message. So this study initially works through the Gospels systematically. The text is designed to be used with a Bible near at hand so that one can see the relationships between parallel texts. We begin with the Synoptists and then proceed to John. A select bibliography closes our look at Jesus.

Before we assess a Jesus reconstructed by various approaches to the historical-critical method, we would do well to understand how the Gospels present him. At least in this case we are all working with the same textual data, even if differing worldviews cause us to respond to that data differently. One argument made throughout the book is that the reader of the Gospels needs to respect the documents’ claims to present Jesus as a figure making unique affirmations of authority tied to his unique relationship to God. It is especially at this point that the Gospel portraits cohere, even in the midst of their diversity. Rather than seeing difference as evidence of contradiction and inauthenticity, I hope to show that the very diversity in the Gospels underscores an inherent unity in their claims that adds depth to the account of Jesus in a way that simply overlapping accounts would not. Just as a three-dimensional portrait gives depth to an image in a way that two dimensions cannot, so these four Gospels reveal a many-sided Jesus whose fundamental claims still challenge us today. Such a look at Jesus according to Scripture gives us a glimpse of how unique a figure Jesus was.

Abbreviations

General

Bibliographic

Bible Texts, Text Types, Traditions, and Versions

Old Testament

Old Testament Apocrypha

New Testament

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Qumran Texts

Rabbinic Sources

Targumic Texts

Josephus

Philo

Patristic Sources

Classical Writers

Part 1

The Four Gospels

Distinctive Voices and How We Got Them

For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, and four universal winds, and as the church is dispersed over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and base of the church and the breath of life, so it is natural that it should have four pillars, breathing immortality from every quarter and kindling the life of men anew. Whence it is manifest that the Word, the architect of all things, who sits upon the cherubim and holds all things together, having been manifested to men, has given us the gospel in fourfold form, but held together by one Spirit.1

The writers of the Gospels make no attempt to develop the life of Christ historically or chronologically. They make no attempt to provide a biography of Christ. The writers, using the same extant material, select and arrange according to their individual emphasis and interpretation that which presents the particular portrait of Christ they desire to convey. The Gospels present the life of Christ thematically and thus are to be viewed as complementary and supplementary rather than contradictory.2

The forming of the fourfold Gospel canon probably took place around the middle of the second century. At about the same time, the apologist Justin Martyr was referring to these church scriptures as memoirs of the apostles. He tells us that they were being read as scriptures in the worship services of the church.3

All four [Gospels] agree that in his deeds and words Jesus acts and speaks for God. He is not just a prophet, nor even the human agent of the kingdom of God; for the extraordinary response is that of worship, worship which may only be given properly to God himself. There may be four gospels, but there is only one Jesus, and he is God.4

The Scripture does not give us one story of Jesus, but four Gospels. Following this introductory unit, we will present the work of Jesus in a twofold structure, one part reflecting the Synoptics’ portrait of Jesus from the earth up and the other working with John’s presentation from heaven down. The present unit sets each Gospel in its historical context and provides an overview of each Gospel. The first three chapters look at broad issues of how the Gospels were composed. The main resource for ancient historians was eyewitness testimony, the topic of the first chapter. This raises two questions about the reliability of the Gospels, treated in the two following chapters. First, how reliable is the memory of an eyewitness? Second, since these historians mostly dealt with oral history, how reliable was the orality of the first century? The fourth chapter provides a survey of the structure, themes, authorship, setting, and date of each Gospel as a way of helping to summarize and set out each Gospel’s contribution to the canonical portrait of Jesus. Much more complete presentations of this material can be found in the technical commentaries on each Gospel and in specialized introductions to the NT. Such an overview will help orient us to the emphases of each Gospel before we examine how they work together to present Jesus.

None of the Gospels names its author. What we do often have is a rich tradition that describes authorship. However, that tradition sometimes is inconsistent in its details. Issues of date and setting are difficult to resolve. In all of these areas a reader should give attention to internal evidence from the texts. The problem is that the significance of these internal details is debatable when it comes to making judgments about implications for setting and authorship. Often inferences, not hard facts, are what we are considering. So we deal with probabilities in the judgments we make about some of the roots of each Gospel. The combination of external and internal evidence suggests that two Gospels are rooted in apostolic origins (Matthew, John), while two others have close connections with the apostolic tradition (Mark through Peter, Luke through Paul and others).

When it comes to outline and themes, we are on slightly more solid ground, because we are working with the textual data. But outlines also are a construct, a way of trying to map the structure of a Gospel. Such outlines are another useful tool in trying to see the main movements within a Gospel. The outlines presented here are set forth merely with such a suggestive intent. These outlines and overviews of the Gospels have almost a list-like feel as they move quickly from topic to topic. The details are found either in the Gospels themselves or in technical treatments more fully dedicated to such questions. Nonetheless, such an overview begins to reveal both how similar to and how distinct from one another the Gospels are. It is this mix of continuity and diversity in the Gospels that gives their portrait of Jesus its richness and that opens the door to a fresh appreciation of who Jesus is in light of the Gospels studied as a unit.

1. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.11.18 (ca. AD 180). This is a famous citation by an early church father. It shows an awareness of the fourfold nature of Gospel witness by the end of the second century, forming a cornerstone for the emerging canon of the NT.

2. J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ: A Study of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 24.

3. William R. Farmer, The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 187.

4. Richard A. Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 171.

1

Witnessing the Gospel

All this opens up the interesting question as to how far the formation of the primitive tradition was influenced by eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. . . . As Bultmann sees it, the primitive community exists in vacuo, cut off from its founders by the walls of an inexplicable ignorance. Like Robinson Crusoe it must do the best it can. Unable to turn to any one for information, it must invent situations for the words of Jesus, and put into His lips sayings which personal memory cannot check. . . . The one hundred and twenty at Pentecost did not go into permanent retreat; for at least a generation they moved among the young Palestinian communities, and through preaching and fellowship their recollections were at the disposal of those who sought information.1

This personal link of the Jesus tradition with particular tradents, or more precisely their memory and missionary preaching, on which more or less emphasis is put, is historically undeniable. From the beginning, the recollection of the words (and actions) of the Lord played a role.2

The quotations above stand in stark contrast to how Rudolf Bultmann and the other form critics viewed the role that eyewitness testimony played in the early church. Bultmann argued that the community, detached from eyewitness testimony, was responsible for developing the traditions. The early church created the stories in the Gospel traditions inspired by what they found in the OT in spite of what they would have received from the earliest believers, who followed Christ.3 In contrast, both Vincent Taylor and Martin Hengel show how the Gospel traditions are rooted in the eyewitness testimony of those who were a part of Jesus’s ministry. These disciples related their memories faithfully; they would have remained a part of the community; they would have made themselves available to those interested in knowing more about Jesus, his life, and his ministry. The NT writers do not provide an explicit description of how these witnesses functioned—there would have been no need at the time. However, in the NT we see that eyewitnesses were present in the church, not as casual members, but in highly visible leadership positions. It would have been natural for the Gospel writers to take advantage of them as they wrote their Gospels.

Eyewitness Testimony and Ancient Historiography

When ancient historians sat down to write about the past, they came to trust what they saw more than what they heard.4 In this respect, eyewitness testimony became the most important source for these historians. Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Tacitus, and Josephus in some way repeated the dictum the eyes are surer witnesses than the ears—an expression going back to Heraclitus, a fourth-century BC historian.5 This eyewitness testimony they called autopsy. Samuel Byrskog, who has traced the use of eyewitness testimony through various Greco-Roman historians, defines autopsy as a visual means to gather information concerning a certain object, which could refer to a place, person, or past event.6 In short, these historians felt that the best way to talk about the past was through relating their own experience. An acceptable alternative, albeit an inferior one, was to interview eyewitnesses.

We see how these historians value personal experiences by the way they criticize other works. They complain that historians ignore eyewitness testimony, or else they call them lazy for their inability to find adequate participants of the events on which they report. For example, Polybius criticizes a historian, Timaeus, for his lack of personal involvement in the events that he describes. Polybius notes that Timaeus neglects any type of personal inquiry and relies solely on written records (Hist. 12.27). He goes on to call Timaeus’s character into question for allowing falsehood to come into his writing. Polybius refuses to call Timaeus’s work history (Hist. 12.12). Josephus provides a similar example. He criticizes Greek historians who are bold enough to write about such affairs without being there or interviewing those who were. He states that these historians have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories (Ag. Ap. 1.8 §46). Josephus goes on to claim that his work is a true history because of his own participation as a soldier and then as a prisoner (Ag. Ap. 1.9 §§47–50). Even though it is doubtful that all historians always used trustworthy eyewitnesses to describe the past,7 it was the standard by which good historical work was judged.

These ancient historians acknowledge that eyewitness testimony creates some drawbacks. First, eyewitness testimony is not objective. For these historians, the ideal eyewitness is a participant—one most involved in the events.8 An involved person will potentially remember an event with more accuracy than an uninterested observer.9 But the interest of an involved person creates a unique perspective on the event itself, which can considerably limit what such persons can recount. Their cultural background, personal history, and social setting create a frame through which they perceive the event. These historians also complain that eyewitnesses, besides being subjective, invariably make mistakes in recalling events.10

Historians would have taken care to exercise some control over the information that came to them. Since they were dealing with people, they had an opportunity to engage these witnesses through interrogation to insure that their information was sound. They would have checked what they received from the eyewitnesses against known facts. To draw from one of our examples above, Polybius’s criticism of Timaeus involves his lack of critical engagement. He states that the truth is that Timaeus is a proof of the fact, that at times, and in the case of many men, want of skill and want of judgment so completely destroy the value of their evidence; even though they were present, they might just as well have been absent or had no eyes (Hist. 12.24). Polybius, along with other historians, makes the point that the historian’s task is to engage the sources in a critical manner in order to tell a factual story—even one that is told from the subjective experience of the eyewitness.

In contrast to ancient historians, modern historians mainly use texts and apply criteria to mitigate any subjectivity. Ancient historians mostly relied on oral traditions, but they did not blindly accept everything that came to them as true. These writers were concerned about the source of a particular tradition, and they considered the perspective of the witness. Even if they included unbelievable stories, they sometimes provided some comment to that effect. It is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel writers followed a similar pattern, or at least this is what their audience would have expected. It is doubtful that all four evangelists knew Jesus—at least Mark and Luke are second-generation Christians—but they would have placed themselves squarely within the realm of ancient historians by seeking out those who had firsthand experience with Jesus and his ministry.

Papias

Byrskog’s work illustrates how historians functioned within the mainstream Greco-Roman culture, but one is hard pressed to find the same type of methodological statements within early Christian literature, which raises the question, Did the early Christian writers use eyewitness testimony in the same way as Greco-Roman historians? Even though a clear description of the eyewitnesses eludes us, we can see how eyewitnesses functioned within the early Christian community. The most significant description comes from Papias, a Christian bishop from Hierapolis, who wrote his major work, Exposition of the Logia of the Lord, around AD 130.11 Much of his work, which is now lost, comes to us through long quotations from a number of church fathers.12 Two quotations may help us gain a better grasp on the value that the early church placed on eyewitness testimony.

The first describes Papias’s interest in hearing directly from those who remember the commandments given by the Lord. He states,

If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Ariston and John the Elder, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.4)

Two features of the quotation stand out. The first feature is that Papias clearly states that he took advantage of interviewing disciples who were followers of the elders. The quotation clearly refers to two distinct groups: the elders, who experienced the Lord’s teaching firsthand, whom he also calls disciples; and those who had been followers of the elders. It is possible that he refers to a third group: Ariston and John the elder, the disciples of the Lord. The first list, of elders/disciples, clearly includes persons who were part of Jesus’s ministry, since the names come from the list of the Twelve in the Gospel (Mark 3:13–19). The break between the first list of disciples and Ariston and John the Elder suggests some kind of difference between the groups.13 Eusebius believes that Ariston and John the Elder were followers of the apostles, since Papias confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, and elsewhere he indicates that he had heard Ariston and John the Elder (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.7). This break between the two groups suggests that Papias was somewhat removed from the disciples by interviewing only those who followed the disciples, not the disciples themselves.14 However, the distinction between the groups is not clear. He calls those in the first group both elders and disciples, titles that he applies to Ariston and John the Elder.15

A likely alternative is that Papias distinguishes between those apostles who have died and those who were alive and actively teaching when he conducted these interviews. Papias uses a verb in the aorist tense to describe the first group: what Andrew or Peter said (εἶπεν). The use of the aorist tense suggests that at the time they had ceased to teach, presumably due to their death. Papias had access to these traditions only through their followers. He shifts from the aorist tense to the present tense when he describes the second group: what Ariston and John the elder are saying (λέγουσιν). This shift indicates that Ariston and John the Elder were still teaching, and Papias would have had direct access to them.16 The disciples would have been dead by the time Papias wrote in 130, but the quotation describes an earlier period when Papias collected these oral traditions, most likely before the end of the first century. If Papias had access to eyewitnesses in the last quarter of the first century, even limited access, the Gospel writers, who wrote earlier, would have had more.

The second feature of the quotation is Papias’s desire to learn not from books but from the living and abiding voice (τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης).17 Many assume that Papias here is simply referring to a preference of orality over written texts, but this misses his point.18 Papias himself was writing a book. Papias’s preference for the living voice suggests that he was interested in firsthand information. The living voice was preferable because of the experience that came along with it. For example, to learn a trade or craft, Greco-Roman authors preferred the living voice of an experienced practitioner rather than a written instruction manual.19 Papias describes his sources as surviving or remaining, which suggests that these eyewitnesses are still alive.20 Jerome, who translated this quotation into Latin, phrases it in this manner: not so much that I have their books to read, as that their living voice is heard until the present day in the authors themselves (Lives 18). Papias’s preference to interview those who have personal memories of Jesus when possible corresponds to the approach that other Greco-Roman historians took.21

The second quotation provides some detail about the composition of Mark and Matthew. Eusebius reports Papias’s statement about the Gospel of Mark as follows,

But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words: This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.14–15)

Concerning Matthew, Papias says, So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16).

The tradition from Papias sheds some light on how Mark made use of eyewitness testimony. First, Papias notes that Mark served as an interpreter for Peter, or better, a translator. The tradition places Mark within Peter’s ministry (cf. 1 Pet. 5:13), but it does not provide the details of their relationship. It is possible that Mark wrote out a translation,22 but it is more probable that he provided an oral translation as Peter preached. This would have placed Mark in a position to interact with Peter’s personal memories about Jesus’s ministry. Depending on how long Mark served as Peter’s translator, he would have been able to interact with Peter, giving him an opportunity to correct any of the narrative details if necessary.23

Second, Papias criticizes Mark for writing without any order. Mark’s lack of order (τάξις) is based on the lack of arrangement (σύνταξις) in Peter’s presentation.24 Papias would have considered an ordered presentation a mark of good historical writing in the purest sense, but despite this lack of arrangement Papias highlights that Mark wrote with accuracy.25 On the other hand, Papias commends Mark for omitting nothing, nor falsifying any of the data.26 Despite Mark’s lack of order, his faithful translation places the reader in close proximity to Peter’s narrative. Richard Bauckham summarizes: Short of a text actually written by an eyewitness, Mark’s Gospel, as represented by Papias, would be as good a historical source as one could get in the period after all eyewitnesses had died.27

Finally, Papias states that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language and that others interpreted the Gospel as they were able. At first blush, the statement may seem out of place, but in comparison to what Papias says about Mark, it becomes somewhat clear. First, in contrast to Mark’s Gospel, which lacks order, Matthew arranges (συντάσσω) the events in his Gospel. Second, Mark’s Gospel was a translation of Peter’s preaching. Papias claims that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ), and others translated it as best as they could. Papias identifies Mark as one who followed Peter, having no contact with Jesus. The contrast implies that Matthew’s Gospel bears the marks of being written by an eyewitness, which Mark lacks.28 Earlier, in an anonymous tradition, Eusebius confirms the tradition that Matthew, along with John, was an eyewitness (Hist. eccl. 3.24.5). It is possible that this anonymous tradition actually comes from Papias due to the significant overlap with what Papias says and Eusebius’s report.29

Justin Martyr makes a similar point by referring to Jesus narratives as either gospels or memoirs. For Justin, the term gospel is predominantly used within the Christian community; it is an insider term.30 On the other hand, a memoir seems to be a more apt description of the literature for someone outside the community. According to Justin, however, these were written documents (Dial. 88.3) that were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them (Dial. 103.8). Later in Dialogue with Trypho, he refers to a saying in Mark as Peter’s memoir (Dial. 106.3). This supports Papias’s tradition that Mark based his Gospel on what Peter remembered.31

The early Christian community believed that eyewitness testimony served as the basis for the Gospel literature. The tradition in which the Gospels were written either by eyewitnesses or those who followed an eyewitness goes back to Papias. Even though Papias wrote his work in 130, the tradition likely goes back to the first century, a time when at least two disciples who followed Jesus were still alive—Ariston and John the Elder. Papias never states that he interviewed these disciples directly, but they would have been actively teaching at a time when he inherited the tradition. Even though it is possible that he received the tradition from those who followed John the Elder, Papias carefully considered and verified the source of the tradition. The early church provides ample support that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. The NT itself provides evidence for the presence of eyewitnesses within the Christian community.

Lukan Prologue

The Lukan prologue (Luke 1:1–4) presents one of the more direct appeals to eyewitness testimony in the Gospels. At the start of his Gospel, Luke states that his narrative comes from "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2). No other Gospel has a prologue such as Luke’s, which is parallel to standard historiographical prologues.32 The prologue helps explain his approach to writing the Gospel in a number of ways.

First, Luke used both written and oral sources for his Gospel. He notes that many have attempted to compile a narrative (1:1), suggesting that he was aware of these texts and that he possibly used them. Because of the significant amount of shared material, we can presume that he used Mark and possibly some other document, such as Q, based on a comparison with Matthew, or else he used Matthew itself;33 however, beyond that it is impossible to know if he used any other written document.

Luke states that he also used the eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word (1:2) as a source for his Gospel. This most likely refers to a single group—eyewitnesses who are also ministers of the word.34 Luke describes these as witnesses from the beginning, which points to John’s baptism. The requisite for replacing Judas was that the disciple had to be a part of the group beginning from the baptism of John (Acts 1:22). The apostolic preaching began with the baptism (Acts 10:37; 13:24–25);35 it would have been essential for the Twelve to be personally involved in the events beginning with the baptism. The Twelve certainly were within Luke’s category, but the group of eyewitnesses from the beginning would have been larger.36 Just like other ancient historians, Luke states that he made use of witnesses who were deeply rooted in Jesus’s life and ministry as early as John’s ministry.37

Second, Luke states that he followed all things carefully from the beginning (1:3). This phrase highlights the care that Luke took in researching the various traditions for Theophilus. Just like other careful ancient historians, he would have done due diligence to understand the events that transpired during Jesus’s ministry through personal interviews, visiting the places where events occurred, and reading various accounts.38 He claims that he studied these things carefully and from the beginning. Since Luke himself was a second-generation Christian, this research would have been necessary. The we sections in Acts suggest that he did travel with Paul on his missionary journeys (Acts 16:10–16; 20:5–16; 27:1–28:16). Acts 21:1–18 describes Luke going to Jerusalem with Paul, where he possibly met with James and others from the Jerusalem church (21:17). His time in Jerusalem as well as his travels would have given him ample opportunity to interview significant members of the church who could provide the details needed to write a Gospel.39

The Lukan prologue states that the Gospel rests on the testimony of those eyewitnesses from the beginning, who became ministers of the word. Not only were these involved with Jesus’s life, but they also played a critical part in the life of the early church. Luke’s narrative indicates that he would have had the opportunity to interview significant members of the early church. Even though neither Matthew nor Mark includes a similar type of statement, we might anticipate that they worked in a similar manner, since Luke used them as sources. Luke’s research would have given him an opportunity to validate their fidelity. If the written sources were not consistent with what he received orally, he would not have used them.

The Fourth Gospel

The Gospel of John is the only Gospel in which the author claims to be an eyewitness. At the end of the Gospel, the writer identifies himself as the Beloved Disciple. This figure appears throughout the Gospel (John 13:23–25; 19:26–27, 35; 20:2–10; 21:7, 20–24). It is possible that the anonymous disciple (John 1:35–42; 18:15–18) is a reference to the Beloved Disciple as well.40 If this is the case, the Beloved Disciple was present at crucial points of Jesus’s ministry: he was originally a disciple of John the Baptist and was present from the beginning of Jesus’s ministry; he was a part of the Last Supper (John 13–17); he witnessed Jesus’s trial (John 18:15–18); he was the only disciple to see Jesus’s death (John 19:26–27); he came to the empty tomb (John 20:2–10); finally, he saw Jesus after his resurrection (John 21:7, 20–24). Two of these references identify the Beloved Disciple as the author. First, immediately following the crucifixion, John 19:35 states that the one who saw this bears witness to it, and his testimony is true, and he knows that he speaks the truth, in order that you also might believe. The