W. Vida

Fri, Nov 12, 2010 : 12:42 a.m.

I would argue that the gospels (and the whole New Testament) are based on eyewitness accounts. I believe that recent scholarship has shown how older views of the early 20th century that suggested the gospels were mid second century are no longer tenable. The work of two scholars has been influential to me. Richard Bauckham, a professor at St. Andrews, and NT Wright (Oxford, Cambridge, and canon theologian in the Anglican communion). Bauckham argues that certain elements of the New Testament point to them being eyewitness accounts. For example, - The importance of eyewitness testimony in 1st century (scholarship shows that historians from this era placed a great value on eyewitness accounts). - The evidence of names in the gospels. Why is the healed blind man, Bartimaeus, named in Mark but in no other gospel? Bauckham argues that this points to eyewitness testimony (some witnesses knew the names and others did not). Further, random names are included that do not advance the story. Why? Bauckham argues that these names are 1st century ways of including footnotes ("Bartimaeus can vouch for what I am saying"). - The evidence of anthropology. For many years it has been claimed that primitive societies cannot tell legend from history, and that they feel free to change handed-down accounts of things past in order to correspond to their present realities and situation. But Bauckham cites J.Vansinas study of oral traditions in primitive African cultures, in which fictional legends and historical accounts are clearly distinguished from each other and much greater care is taken to preserve historical accounts accurately. These points were taken from this excellent review of Bauckham's book by Tim Keller: http://download.redeemer.com/pdf/newsletter/RedeemerNewsletter-2007-04.pdf Here is the book. http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621 Wright's view is more complicated but please check out these book's: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Victory-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626826 and http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-People-God/dp/0800626818 Further, Wright makes the case that because the scriptures are reliable eye witness accounts, the resurrection becomes difficult to explain away. He makes that case in brief here: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm And in excruciating detail here: http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796

Jonathan Hurshman

Thu, Nov 11, 2010 : 8:58 a.m.

This seems like a helpful answer, but I wish you had provided a little more information to counter the widely-held misperception (popularized by the novel The Da Vinci Code) that the canon was shanghaied by political powers and a "close vote" occurred at the Council of Nicaea in 325 which excluded the Gnostic gospels and included Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which had theretofore been rather obscure and unknown. Every part of this widely-believed tale is fairly easily proven false (e.g., the Council of Nicaea held no vote at all regarding the canon), but many people don't know this. A minor point: I'm pretty sure that a text which starts "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1.1), an obvious echo of Genesis 1.1, was not written by someone who had "no idea" that the text might be considered authoritative in some way. I mean, the author of the Gospels weren't writing blogs here, just shooting off random thoughts about Jesus. They carefully crafted what they were writing, with some knowledge that they were doing something important, even authoritative.

J.A.B.

Wed, Nov 10, 2010 : 11:11 p.m.

Thank you for addressing this topic - your answers are helpful in understanding the process behind canonization. As usual, the historical context seems invaluable. It does make me curious to learn the content of the writings that were considered and did not make the final cut.