The Gospels and Paul: Eyewitness Testimonies?

We’re told by the devout Christian that the events of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth are reliably recorded in the four books known as the gospels as well as the writings of Paul. The reason for this, is in part, the claim that these documents are independent eye-witness sources. But can that be true? Yes, and no. Let’s compile a list of these sources and you’ll quickly see why:

Paul: According to his own writings, Paul was a later convert, whose understanding of the gospel message, was passed down to him. Paul’s writings were “independent” in the sense that they came from his own mind. But in the sense that they corroborate the Christian story of Jesus? That cannot be established. Paul was not an eye-witness and his propagation of Jesus’ supernatural claims was predicated on what the early Christians taught him, and his understanding of those teachings in relation to Jewish scripture.

John: The Gospel of John is an eye-witness, in so far as we attribute the gospel to John, John’s literary style is very distinct from the rest of the gospels which suggests independence.

Luke: As implied in his prologue, Luke was not an eye-witness to the events he writes about. Instead, he, a convert (through Paul), attempted to take the great diversity of narratives that were circling around Jesus at the time and compile an account of them. How Luke determined which narrative source was reliable is unknown to us.

Matthew: Matthew, like John, is another eye-witness (having, like John, been an Apostle), in so far as we can attribute this gospel to him. I say attribute in the case of Matthew and John because both write as if speaking in the third person and do not directly identify themselves. Thus, in another strike for overall historical reliability, both documents are technically anonymous.

Mark: Mark’s status as an eyewitness is not explicitly untenable but it is improbable. Namely, Christian tradition suggests the author of Mark was a scribe in the employ of the Apostle Peter. Jesus had no apostle named Mark.

So, on a liberal estimate, you have four independent sources, two of which are eyewitnesses. So what? You don’t need the full five independent, eyewitness sources to confirm something was historical, as many Christian apologists will tell you, much of our knowledge of history comes from single-source documentation. However, they either fail to see or perhaps, choose to ignore a not-so-subtle difference. A single source for something mundane, such as a mention of a volcanic eruption in a region with volcanic activity, on the back of a letter can be accepted because of its plausibility. However, a single source claiming that a man rose from the dead as the vindicated incarnation of a god, is not mundane or plausible, and therefore much more demanding in terms of evidence before acceptance. History, like any other method for determining truth, has presuppositions — among which include regularities in nature.

However, the Christian has four sources. So what’s the problem? The synoptic problem is as it’s called notes that the gospels of Matthew and Luke copy heavily from the Gospel of Mark in their original Greek. They copy Mark’s syntax extensively, word for word, as well as the same sequential ordering of events. Luke copies Mark to a degree of 79% and Matthew copies Mark to a degree of 94%. An essay that copies another to a degree of 79–94% would be considered in any college to be plagiarism. In the context of biblical source criticism, the synoptic problem shows that Luke and Matthew are not independent sources. It gets worse when you look at the only gospel of three that is an “eyewitness” account — Matthew. As aforementioned, Matthew copies Mark to a degree of 94% yet we’re told that Matthew is an eyewitness while Mark is not. So, the question is, why is an eyewitness account copying in near full a non-eyewitness account? The relationship between Matthew and Mark undermines the conclusion that Matthew was written by an eyewitness. This means we now only have two sources, one of which is an eyewitness — John.

Now, many scholars would argue that given how late it was written, the author of John would have been familiar with the gospel of Mark, and some even say that John used Mark as a template. Of course, neither would particularly undermine John’s literary independence. However, the question is, is one eyewitness source enough for you to conclude historically that God became human, healed people, gave moral teaching, died, and later rose from the dead to fulfill some salvation mission?