Some time ago I attended a presentation about the impact of the open access movement on journal publishing. The speaker commented on how the discourse about a particular subject can easily be moulded by a set of baseless assertions; it is left to some poor individual (the speaker had himself in mind) to go to through the hard work of detailed and thorough analysis only to disprove these assertions. It is a good warning to beware the conventional wisdom within any discipline.
This is certainly true in the case of the study of Jesus. For years the academic community has been influenced by the conclusions of the 19th century German ‘form critics’, who had decided that the Jesus traditions has been passed down in a long and fluid process of oral transmission prior to writing of the gospels. For myself, such a conclusion always seemed unlikely a priori because even if we accept a late date for the gospels (say, mid-80s) then they are still within living memory and so a very fluid transmission could be contradicted. However, with the research of R. Bauckham, we can now be confident that the assertions of the form critics are false.
Bauckham begins by re-examining the testimony of Papias (chapter 2), who explicitly records his own endeavour to gather together the testimonies of eyewitnesses still living and those who knew them. This indicates that the testimonies about Jesus were still attached to eyewitnesses and should incline scholars to take seriously claims, such as those of Luke, that the gospels were based upon eyewitness testimony. Bauckham analyses named individuals within the gospels (chapter 3) and argues that their naming is irrelevant unless they were supposed to be known by the readers. The gospel writers were specifically connecting these incidents with eyewitnesses who could corroborate the story. After some fascinating analysis of the provenance of names in 1st century Palestine (chapter 4), Bauckham continues to explore the roles of eyewitnesses in the gospels (chapter 6), primarily Peter as the witness behind Mark’s gospel (chapters 7 & 9).
Having established the strong case that living eyewitnesses were explicitly connected with the stories about Jesus by the gospel writers, Bauckham proceeds to analyse the nature and role of oral tradition (chapters 10-12). He contradicts the idea that oral transmission must necessarily be fluid, demonstrating that this is entirely dependent on the type of material and the community preserving it. Examples of Paul’s letters are used to demonstrate that the traditions about Jesus were passed to the churches by careful memorization of those traditions. He also provides some useful research into the reliability of eyewitness memory, demonstrating that it can be reliable even after many decades, particular regarding the kind of momentous events recorded in the gospels.
In the final section (chapters 14-17), Bauckham extends his thesis further and contradicts the received wisdom by arguing that John’s gospel is also eyewitness testimony. He identified the “disciple whom Jesus loved” as John the Elder, not the son of Zebedee but another follower of Jesus. Bauckham sees John’s gospel as presupposing the existence of the other gospels, and supplementing their testimony (primarily Petrine) with the reminiscences of John.
Some readers may not agree with everything Bauckham writes. He seems to take for granted a particular view on the synoptic problem and, as a historical study, he does not talk about inspiration. Nevertheless the significance of this work should not be underestimated. It restores the link between the gospels and the eyewitnesses, and so fatally undermines the form critical approach to the gospels. The study of “historical” Jesus should never be the same again.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)