All Comments for: They Really Saw Him | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > June (Web-only)

Christianity Today, June (Web-only), 2007 |

Book Awards 2007: Q&A

They Really Saw Him

Richard Bauckham argues that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony, not "anonymous community traditions." The key, he says, is in the names.

Interview by Gary Burge | posted 6/07/2007 08:50AM

The author of CT's 2007 Book Award winner in biblical studies, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham proposes a new (or, rather, an ancient) paradigm through which to view the Gospels: as the eyewitness ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

murpht

Posted: June 17, 2007 6:06 PM


this is all too adolescent for Christisnity Today

David Middlemiss

Posted: June 11, 2007 9:38 PM

I agree with Mr. Gann on this one. The fact that no one tried to iron out the descrepancies shows me that people felt it more important to preserve the text as it was originally written, than to have them all agree precisely. Not all the manuscripts of a single gospel agree 100%. One reason I believe the gospels were written at an early age is that none of them mention that the temple was in fact destroyed after Jesus speaks of it's coming destruction. If the gospels were written after the temple was destroyed you'd think they would have mentioned it.

George T.

Posted: June 11, 2007 7:11 PM


Great article for our times !!!!

Jay Maupin

Posted: June 09, 2007 2:12 AM

C.S. Lewis was an outstanding scholar of textual criticsim--the method of analyzing a text to get a good sense of what the writer really knew and intended. When he was studying Christianity but before he was converted, was annoyed at what he considered the poor style. Here were these great "legends", and they were written in this dry, unadorned style. Why, he thought, indignantly, these are so lacking in literary and poetic flourishes they might as well be eyewitness reports! Eventually he put two and two together...

H. D. Schmidt

Posted: June 08, 2007 9:53 AM

However, as Ronald Reagan would quip, here we go again! Yes, there is much discussion as to Scripture, but where is really the beef when it comes Christians truly behaving as such? Just yesterday I had a chance of a lifetime to speak to an American white man converted to Budism. I ended up talking to him at the Barnes & Noble book store when he greeted me with such a simple attitude. So, I thought for sure that he must be a top Christian, when in reality that is actually what he is as our dialogue continued. While he is an avowed Budist he said this: All that really matters is the Sermon on the Mount. Vow! I thought to myself. What goes here, a devout Budist quoting the Sermon on the Mount? In closing, yes, this man displayed as far as could tell truly a Christian attitude. Yes, there is much arguig going within Christendome about Scripture, but where is truly beef as to behavior? Just to mention a few items, how about divorce withing Christians? How about sexual immorality etc., etc.?

Trevor Faggotter

Posted: June 08, 2007 7:17 AM

I look forward to purchasing a copy of Richard Bauckham's book, and reading his work. I am reminded of a work by Allison A. Trites, 'The New Testament Concept of Witness' (Cambridge, 1977). I have also been recently impressed by pondering again the huge impact Jesus' risen appearances and opening of the Scriptures, must have had (Luke 24) upon the disciples. The teaching they received (Acts 1:3) prior to the ascension, and then the empowering to proclaim at Pentecost, must surely have spawned an enormous number of rich insights into what this all meant. While not fussed to defend the old concepts of innerrancy and infallibility, I have always felt that the gospels, particularly John's have taken a fair hammering from the scholars, with only mild resistance to their work. Dr. Leon Morris, is one, who did not really 'buy' all the form critical arguments, and he maintained a conservative postion with great integrity, without - lying. Look forward to the read: thank you.

Edward T. Babinski

Posted: June 07, 2007 10:28 PM

According to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, only three apostles, "Peter, James and John," saw Jesus "transfigured on a mountain." Therefore if Bauckham says "John" wrote the Gospel of John, it's curious why he did not mention the transfiguration, a sight only two other apostles witnessed, and also not mention the name "James" in the entire Gospel of John (James being one of the three who formed the major triumvirate of the early church and saw the transfiguration). And why are all four Gospels written in the third person, and anonymous, such that someone else a generation or more later had to "name" them? I think the church needed to attach names by that later date, because it had grown and people grew curious. So through hearsay and second guessing they came up with "the authors" [sic]. Criticisms of the Gospel of John: www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/cs_lewis_theology.html www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/gospel_john.html www.edwardtbabinski.us/theology/gospel_of_john.html

Patrick Gann

Posted: June 07, 2007 7:41 PM

People in these comments section need to stop lying to themselves and others (I'm looking at you Jay). "Proof of divine inspiration," if it were really proof, would have convinced a lot more people by now. I agree God is trustworthy, but I disagree that the Gospels "all agree everywhere." That's simply a false statement...there are discrepancies, and you have to dance on your head to try and reconcile them (if you believe they need to be reconciled). There are different ways of understanding "Divine" Inspiration, but we will not do well to think of the Bible in the same way Muslims understand the Qur'an or LDS members understand the Book of Mormon. These aren't words directly handed down from on high.

Gary Leedes

Posted: June 07, 2007 5:09 PM

I think Richard Bauckham wrote a credible book. He obviously did his homework. His approach should not be dismissed as if it were some sort of heresy.The problem with Jay's post is that there are actually some disagreements on this and that point in the four gospels. See e.g.Raymond E. Brown's "The Death of the Messiah. The minor differences in the copies of the Gospels that we read tend to show that there was no conspiracy to "gild the lily." . Each gospel report reflects that witnesses viewed several events from a different perspective. This happens in court all the time and these differences do not actually undercut (one bit) the core message. Of course, the God's Word is infallible; the problem is that we who often are sure of ourselves are not infallible

Jim	Posted: June 07, 2007 2:40 PM


I agree with the above posts. The Holy Spirit impacted the Gospel writers, bringing to their rememberance the events, places and occurrences of which they wrote about.

Jay M. Parsons

Posted: June 07, 2007 1:41 PM

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were present with Jesus. What one must understand and accept is that all sciptures were given by God Himself. The Gospels are not merely human endeavors but scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Luke and John were written many years after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit had to have helped them remember to accurately record each detail without error. There are no errors in scripture. 2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. There are places in the Gospels where we are told what people said and even thought. No man can tell what others are thinking, this must come from God. The fact that the Gospels all agree everywhere is proof of Divine Inspiration. God is trustworty.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment