The Bible
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 50, No. 1 – Fall 2007
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. 538 +xii pages. Hardcover, $32.00.
Richard Bauckham—prolific writer, prominent scholar, and Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland—presents a refreshing and formidable case for the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels. This book successfully goes against the grain of most New Testament scholarly writings today and answers such common assertions as: (1) the historical Jesus is hidden in the
Gospels and must be dug out by experts, (2) there are many inaccuracies and anachronisms in the Synoptic Gospels, and (3) John’s Gospel is totally unreliable.
Bauckham carefully builds upon the work of Swedish scholar Samuel Byrskog, who claims the Gospel writers followed the accepted practice of Greco-Roman historians. They believed the best source for writing history was to be an actual participant in the event (direct autopsy); however, this situation was often not possible. So, interviewing eyewitnesses (indirect autopsy) was the next best practice (8–11, 27, 479–80).
The subject is well researched and documented. Bauckham carefully walks his readers through his inductive, logical study, amply giving seventeen helpful tables when needed (ix). He strongly advocates his case; yet, he keeps the proper scholarly hedge to avoid discussion-stopping dogmatism. He deals kindly with scholars with whom he disagrees (e.g. 246–48, 267, 308). The footnotes are ample, as are the four appendices.
The strengths of this book are its contributions to New Testament studies through some strong, positive assertions rarely heard in New Testament scholarship today. First, Bauckham validates the accuracy and importance of eyewitness testimony in the Gospels—which are the primary sources for at least Mark and John. He gives a helpful list and description of the most reliable kinds of eyewitness testimony (330–35). Second, he posits a short period of time between the historical Jesus and the writing of the Gospels—well within the lifetime of living eyewitnesses—a belief many modern scholars sadly reject (8, 240). Third, he clarifies the early Christian preference for oral history (living eyewitness testimony) rather than oral tradition (community memory: a misunderstanding postulated by many scholars today and a cornerstone of form criticism) (30–34). Further, by refining Birger Gerhardsson’s work on memorization (249–52) and Kenneth Bailey’s idea of formal controlled tradition, Bauckham affirms the control of eyewitness testimony (by access to the living eyewitnesses, memorization, and designated teachers within each community) as well as accounts for the known variations (280–87). Fourth, he boldly asserts that harmonization can be a viable solution to explain certain Synoptic variants, such as Thaddeus and Judas the son of James being the same person (99–101).
No doubt many conservative readers (as well as this reviewer) disagree with Bauckham’s contention that John the Elder instead of John the son of Zebedee wrote the Gospel of John (358–71). He claims the Beloved Disciple, aka John the Elder, was the author of John and a member of a wider group of disciples than the Twelve (16–17, 467–68). His arguments are interesting but not convincing. However, one should not miss the important point that Bauckham believes an apostolic eyewitness
of Jesus did write this Gospel—a position disputed by many current New Testament scholars. Bauckham’s solid case for the truthfulness and veracity of John’s Gospel—evidenced by its eyewitness testimony—is much needed in scholarly circles today.
Weaknesses in the book are few. There appears to be too much reliance upon the veracity of Papias’ statements (12–37, 202–39, 412–37), a sometimes dubious source that is now extant only through Eusebius. Bauckham admits even Eusebius did not trust Papias (13)! Second, too much is made of the alleged inclusio of eyewitness testimony in Mark, John (124–29), and Luke—the latter instance being the least convincing (130–32). Yet, this hypothesis deserves further study, as does the revival of Cuthbert Turner’s interesting claim that the plural-to-singular narrative device with an internal focalization (point of view) in Mark is a literary tool indicating an eyewitness source (156–64).
Bauckham’s book has stirred up the strongholds of form and redaction criticism, and rightly so. His strong stand for living eyewitness testimony in the Gospels is dearly needed.
