Bauckham begins his study by introducing what is to me the key contribution his work makes: the category of eyewitnesses. He points out that the way a lot of form critics of the NT operate it is as if they assume that the disciples (or eyewitnesses) first told the Gospel story and then went on permanent retreat, never to be heard from again. The argument that the Gospels are in the majority constructions of later Christianity is nonsensical in light of the fact that “The gospels were written within living memory of the events they recount” (7). Furthermore, he points out that contrary to our modern view of history, in the ancient world the most reliable witnesses to an event were those that were not only present at the event, but were intimately involved in the event which allowed them “to understand and interpret the significance of what [they] had seen” (9). In this regard, Bauckham notes, “the Gospels are much closer to the methods and aims of ancient historiography than they are to typical modern historiography” (11) but they must be understood as historiography in some form.
He next turns to a discussion of Papias (who we know only through citations in Eusebius). He will return to examine in detail Papias’ view of the Gospels in chs. 9 and 16. For his purposes here, he establishes the importance of eyewitness testimony in that it was considered “the best practice of historians” (27) to be most reliant upon eyewitness testimony in constructing a history.
The next several chapters (chs. 3-5) Bauckham focuses on the phenomenon of names in the Gospel accounts. He argues that the named individuals in the Gospels correspond exactly with the gamut of names we would expect from first century Palestine and that the names serve as identifiable witnesses to certain events in the Gospels.
Bauckham then turns to a discussion (chs. 7-8; 10-13) making the case for the origin of the Gospels as eyewitness testimony and the reliability of eyewitness memory. He argues for a Petrine perspective in Mark based on what he calls the “inclusio of eyewitness testimony” (155), which basically means that Peter is the first and last eyewitness mentioned in Mark, and the distinct plural-to-singular narrative device (e.g., Mk. 5:1-2), whereby the narrative switch from plural to singular “closely reproduces the way Peter told the story” (156) and functions to give the reader “the ‘point of view’ of the group of disciples” (161). He then argues that oral tradition is much more capable of “preserving traditions faithfully, even across much longer periods than that between Jesus and the writing of the Gospels” (240). This is not a new argument, it has often been recognized that the arguments of form critics require much longer to develop than was present between Jesus life (ca. 30 CE) to the writing of the Gospels (ca. 60-70 CE). Furthermore, he goes into some depth in looking at memory studies and finds that the kind of events that scholars of memory argue are most likely to be remembered in detail are precisely the kind of events that the disciples lived through.
Finally, Bauckham turns to a detailed discussion on the authorship of the Gospel of John. John, he argues is John the Elder, identified by Papias and also the ‘beloved disciple’ who is not to be equated with John the son of Zebedee. Whether or not you agree with his identification of the author of John, I believe that Bauckham’s analysis of John as the best example of complete ancient historiography we have in the Gospels will begin to change the way we view this Gospel. While the Gospel of John is often viewed as the most ‘theologized’ of the gospels and therefore the least historically reliable, Bauckham argues the opposite. He argues that the Gospel of John represents the most intimate portrait of the events by an intimate eyewitness that is a better example of ancient historiography than the Synoptic Gospels. He argues that Papias understood that John was better ordered because John, unlike the Synoptics, was able to order the events in order to bring out their significance more than the Synoptics, which were probably not actually penned by an eyewitness as was John.
Regardless of how you view Bauckham’s contribution, it is significant and his arguments must be taken seriously. For me, I cannot see how you can read Bauckham’s detailed work and not conclude that the Gospels reflect clear eyewitness testimony. Now, that is not to say that there are not reasons for distrusting eyewitness testimony. But if the discussion is able to shift to ‘the testimony is accurate until proven otherwise’ I think Gospel scholarship will be in a much better place.
kilbabo 
November 26, 2008 at 12:18 am
If the fourth gospel is in fact was written by “an intimate eyewitness” then what in God’s word would lead anyone to believe that the author was someone named John? The inspired authors of scripture recorded not a shred of evidence that would suggest that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was a person named John. The men who added a title to the fourth gospel that included the name John did so because they ASSUMED that the beloved disciple was a reference to the Apostle John (NOT to a different John) but the Bible can prove that they were mistaken. [Beginning with the fact that EVERY event where John is named as participating in the other three gospels is missing from the fourth gospel.]
The truth is there is not a single verse in scripture that would justify teaching the idea that John was the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” and yet most simply assume that this man-made tradition cannot be wrong and then interpret scripture to fit this idea. In order to sell this unbiblical idea it is claimed that John is referred to in the five passages that in fact never mention him but that rather talk only about the anonymous one whom “Jesus loved” — but this is easily shown to be the logical fallacy called circular reasoning. This idea comes from NON-Bible sources and is imposed upon the text, when the text says nothing of the kind. In fact we see a stark contrast between the BEHAVIOR of John who repeatedly identifies himself by name in the Book of Revelation and the BEHAVIOR of the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” who went to great lengths to conceal his identity in the fourth gospel.
If one will heed Ps. 118:8 then the NON-BIBLE sources on which this man-made error is based will give way to the facts in scripture which prove that WHOEVER this anonymous author was he most certainly was not John. It can hardly be honoring to God for one to present an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea — but those who promote the unbiblical tradition that the “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John do just that.
We’re told, “[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man”. Given this explicit statement (along with similar statements in scripture on this matter) it is clear that one should be leery of those who encourage people trust in NON-Bible sources and put their confidence in unbiblical man-made traditions. To show respect for the word of God we need to heed the Biblical admonition to “prove all things” – and not simply be repeating the ideas of men but rather looking to scripture and searching the scriptures to see if what we have read or have been told can stand up to Biblical scrutiny.
Defenders of the John tradition can choose to ignore the facts stated in the plain text of scripture if they prefer to quote the words of men who quote other men who quote other men but one thing that neither they nor their NON-Bible sources cannot do is cite even a single verse that would justify this idea. No one ever has — not those who originated this unbiblical idea and not those who still promote that idea today. Papias can be wrong, like anyone else, but if the Bible is the word of God then it cannot be wrong and that is why we should rely on it and not on the hearsay found in NON-Bible sources.
November 26, 2008 at 1:07 am
Hello Jim,
I appreciate your detailed response to my review. I think you are right in pointing out that Bauckham’s main category for arguing that John is the author of the Gospel of John (and keep in mind that he argues that it is John the Elder, a different person from John the son of Zebedee) is in the main an historical argument. He gets his information from Papius and builds his argument from that. It is a historical argument, but it never claims to be anything but that.
I see from your book that you are a proponent of seeing Lazarus as the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved.’ I am actually very intrigued by that possibility and think that when read literarily the Gospel does perhaps imply that reading. I have heard Ben Witherington make this case elsewhere.
I think, however, that the main contribution Bauckham makes is to show that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness, and that the Gospel is in fact good historiography. Whether you agree with him or not on the identification of John the Elder as the beloved disciple, I think that his arguments for the historic reliability of John (something often downplayed in scholarship) is a breath of fresh air.