Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really use any eyewitness testimony when they wrote the Gospels? Were any of these four gospel writers eyewitnesses themselves?
Do we have eyewitness testimony in the gospels?
“Even though we might desperately want to know the identities of the authors of the earliest Gospels, we simply don’t have sufficient evidence. The books were written anonymously and evidently not by eyewitnesses”—Bart D. Ehrman
The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, nor did they include any eyewitness testimony, so says the popular agnostic Bible scholar, who has quite a following. While such claims were rare prior to the 1800’s, they have been increasing, and ever more so in recent times.read more
Anonymous Folklore, or Eyewitness Accounts, of Jesus?
A popular myth is spread that the gospels, and the New Testament historical accounts, are simply anonymous folklore, embellished oral traditions and legends about a man named Jesus, who was likely a real, historical figure. As other articles on this site have shown, the entire New Testament was written within the lifetime of the Apostle John, who apparently lived on about 60-70 years after Jesus’ death. This is certainly believable since there are alive today a number of people who were living back during WWII, which ended in 1945.
Peter, one of Jesus’ most intimate of his 12 apostles, besides writing 2 general letters to Christians, apparently shared with his younger associate in Christ, Mark, details that enabled Mark to accurately record his gospel (1 Peter 5:13). Mark did not simply write any so-called anonymous folklore about Jesus. In Peter’s 2nd general letter to Christians, notice what he had to say:
“We have not depended on made-up stories in making known to you the mighty coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. With our own eyes we saw his greatness”—2 Peter 1:16 GNB
Although many were predictably beginning to “turn away from the truth, and turn aside to myths” (2 Timothy 4:4 NIV), because “false teachers . . . will exploit you with fabricated words” (2 Peter 2:1-3), this was not the case with true Christians who stuck with God’s reliably revealed word, the Bible.
Luke, written by Luke, the meticulous researcher, was written to, and dedicated to, Theophilus, who was probably one of Luke’s patrons.
=&0=&things accomplished=&1=&down=&2=&from=&3=&beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:1,2 NLT)
“With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus.” (Luke 1:3 NIV)
A patron would obviously know who he was patronizing, so Luke couldn’t have been anonymous! Furthermore, notice who Luke says he interviewed:
“Those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” (Luke 1:2 NIV).
Luke’s gospel was written by Luke, who interviewed many people who were actual eyewitnesses to the events that Luke recorded in his book. Luke did not record animus folklore, but actual eyewitness accounts.
“Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?’ This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:23,24 NIV)
The anonymous disciple mentioned in verse 23, and other places in the 4th gospel, was known early on to be the Apostle John. Verse 24 says that he wrote the book. So the gospel of John was written by Jesus’ most intimate apostle, who was an eyewitness to many of the events recored in the gospel of John.
Is the New Testament based on eyewitness testimony? Let’s examine the Bible to find out.
Is the NT based on eyewitness testimony?
“Draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses.” (Luke 1:1,2 NIV) The Bible writer Luke based his accounts on eyewitness testimony.read more
Who wrote 1 and 2 Peter, two letters of the 27 books of the New Testament? Many critics say that they written by a pseudonymous writer, or writers, falsely claiming to be the apostle Peter, and especially is this said about 2 Peter.
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . ” (1 Peter 1:1). ” . . . as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1 NAB). The writer of 1 Peter clearly identifies himself by name as “Peter”, and also “an apostle of Jesus Christ” that is, one of Christ’s original 11 faithful apostles, and “as a fellow presbyter”, that is, an older, mature Christian man, having the position in the church of “elder” (1 Peter 5:1 most translations), and as a “witness to the sufferings of Christ”, meaning he was actually there in person alongside Christ when Jesus was on earth. These descriptions fit the apostle Peter.
“Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours” (2 Peter 1:1 NAB). The opening verse of 2 Peter attributes its writing to the same apostle Peter as the first letter does. Notice the name “Symeon”. This is the same Hebrew name used to describe him when, “The apostles and the presbyters met together” and “James =&0=&Obviously, the apostle Peter is referred to here by the same name he uses to introduce his second letter.
“This is now, beloved, the second letter I am =&1=&The writer of 2 Peter clearly says this is the second letter he is writing, which implies that 1 Peter is the first letter he wrote.
“We had been eyewitnesses of his majesty . . . We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the =&2=&The writer of 2 Peter counts himself as an ‘eyewitness’ who was present at Jesus’ transfiguration. The gospel writers Matthew, Mark and Luke place Peter at the Transfiguration scene (Matthew 17:1-11; Mark 9:2-11; Luke 9:28-36).
The writer of 2 Peter says, “our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that I must soon leave this earthly life” (2 Peter 1:14 NLT). Only the apostle Peter could have made such a statement (John 21:18,19), keeping in mind Jesus’ prediction from 35-40 years past.
Saying, “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:15), suggests a close relationship with the apostle Paul, which fits the apostle Peter.
Critics, however, have generated more controversy over the writership and canonicity of 2 Peter than any other book of the New Testament.
Early Church Views of the Writership of Peter’s Letters
First and Second Peter both claim writership by Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1,17-18), and “a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1). The early church unhesitatingly received 1 Peter as authentic, and there is also some evidence of the acceptance of 2 Peter as authentic. Some examples are as follows, but notice the proof of the very early acceptance of both 1 and 2 Peter as authentic:
Papias (60- 135 CE), about 110 CE, noted that “Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle” [Eusebius, History, 2.15]. (1 Peter 5:13).
Clement of Rome (30-101 CE), about 95 CE, in 1 Clement, paraphrased 2 Peter 3:1-4
The Didache (an anonymous, early-second-century CE work dealing with a variety of doctrinal and practical matters of import to the early Christian church) about 95 CE, cited 1 Peter 2:11
Papias, about 110 CE, cited 1 Peter
Polycarp (69-156 CE), about 130 CE, cited 1 Peter.
