Novum Testamentum 52 (2010) 88-100

brill.nl/nt

Book Reviews
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), xiii + 538 pp., ISBN: 978-0-8028-3162-0, $ 32.00.
Advanced scholarly praise for this book has created high expectation for readers and
reviewers. Hailed as a blockbuster (J.D.G. Dunn) and a tour de force (N.T. Wright)
that shakes the foundations of a century of scholarly study of the Gospels (G. Stanton) and promises to be a pioneering work refuting old and new errors (M. Hengel).
Bauckhams thorough study of eyewitness testimony to Jesus is a major event in New
Testament studies.
Bauckhams thesis is that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. In the case
of the synoptics this testimony is collected and ordered by others (Mark as Peters
interpreter; Luke as presenting the testimony of those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 1:2). The writer of John was an eyewitness who
had been with Jesus from the beginning, and who Bauckham identies as John the
elder, rather than the Apostle, the son of Zebedee (Chapter 15). This picture is argued
with a new condence in the logion of Papias and a fresh appreciation of testimony
from Polycrates and Irenaeus.
Taking his lead from the recent impressive study by Samuel Byrskog, Story as HistoryHistory as Story (2002) Bauckham assesses the Gospels against the background
of ancient historiography, particularly Polybius and Josephus, and argues that best
historical practice was to rely on eyewitness testimony (autopsy) especially where the
historian was also participant in the events (Josephus, C.Ap. 1:47, p. 120). He contends that the gospels contain just such autopsy, and points to named persons (Jairus,
Bartimaeus, Joseph of Arimathea) as participants and subsequent guarantors of the
stories in which they appear.
This picture challenges the prevailing assumption, a legacy of form criticism, that a
long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the
eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists (240). Will
this radically dierent picture of the history of the Gospel tradition, presented by Bauckham, stand up to scrutiny?
The variation on the form critical model proposed by Kenneth Bailey has proved
attractive in recent years. Reacting to both the informal uncontrolled model (Bultmann) or the formal controlled picture (Gerhardsson) of the transmission of the
tradition, Bailey posits an informal controlled transmission theory, based on his
observation of the practice of Middle Eastern village life. In this model it is the community that exercises control rather than the ocial storyteller. For Bauckham this
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010

DOI: 10.1163/004810010X12577565604251

Book Reviews / Novum Testamentum 52 (2010) 88-100

89

three-fold typology is not nuanced enough. He raises questions concerning the mechanism of control and the relative balance of stability and exibility in the transmission of
Gospel tradition (258). His study shows that eyewitnesses played a more important
role in the preservation and shaping of the tradition than has hitherto been recognized.
However, in the four contrasting areas (controlled/uncontrolled, formal/informal,
xed/free, oral/written) a model already exists that has not been suciently appreciated for its relevance for the study of the development of Gospel traditions. That
model is the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible. As the word of Jesus and the word about
him became authoritative for the early church, they began to be treated with the same
regard as the scriptures. Especially in the study of xity and freedom, the variety of
textual variations and interpretive traditions of the Old Testament current in the second temple period provide something of a mechanism of control for the tradition
which the earliest Christians handed on according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-7).
The xity and freedom observable in the early Christian exegesis of scripture can provide a model for the study of their preserving and shaping of the Gospel tradition.
Exploring this model or paradigm calls for a very large study, but Bauckhams work on
eyewitnesses has now set the stage for such an investigation.
Bauckham proves more than he argues. The inuence of eyewitness testimony on
the Gospel tradition could also be applied to the epistles. He notes such inuence with
regard to 1 Cor 11:23-25 (the institution of the Eucharist) as Pauline evidence of
formal transmission of the tradition, and also refers to 1 Cor 15:1-11. But there may
be more evidence to consider. What if Paul wrote rather than at
1 Cor 2:1? If this is our decision where the manuscript support is evenly-divided, then
Pauls reference to the testimony of God may have a bearing on the discussion. At least
Bauckham should have noted this important textual variant.
Also missing from the book is any reference to 2 Peter. Given Bauckhams work on 2
Peter this is surprising. Some discussion of 2 Pet 1:16-18 would have been in order. In
light of Bauckhams denitive study of eyewitness testimony in early Christianity, how
would he assess the claims in the letter we had been eyewitnesses to his majesty (1:16)
and we were with him on the holy mountain? (1:18). Granted that in 2 Peter a
dierent word is used for eyewitnesses (; cf. Luke 1:2 ). The passage,
nonetheless, has a bearing on Bauckhams discussion. His argument that several of the
we references in Johannine literature (especially John 21:24) are examples of Johannine idiomatic usage, what he calls the we of authoritative testimony, is most persuasive (370-383). Is not this characterization equally applicable to 2 Pet 1:16-18?
Will Bauckhams pioneering work on eyewitness testimony challenge him to re-assess
his view of the letter as pseudepigraphal, in the literary genre of testament?
This book very eectively challenges old assumptions, answers old questions and
raises new ones. Bauckham explores the area of memory theory (Chapter 13) and
relates his ndings to holocaust testimony with considerable daring (Chapter 18). His
argument does not depend on these explorations and will stand long after new theories
have arisen to replace the current ones. The heart of the book is a solid advance in the
study of the Gospels with which all subsequent studies will have to reckon.
Peter R. Rodgers