Criteria For The Gospels' Authenticity
CRITERIA FOR THE GOSPELS' AUTHENTICITY
Robert H. Stein
During the middle of the twentieth century, the leading voice in New Testament (NT) studies was Rudolf Bultmann. This was due not only to his writings but also because many of the students he trained went on to occupy prestigious chairs in NT both in Germany and in other countries. Along with other scholars such as K. L. Schmidt (Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesus, 1919) and Martin Dibelius (Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 1919), Bultmann (Die Geschichte der Synoptischen Evangelien, 1921) pioneered the work of form criticism in the NT and with his disciples presented a negative picture of the historical value of the NT Gospels. In America this view was represented well by Norman Perrin who stated: “Clearly, we have to ask ourselves the question as to whether [a] saying [in the Gospels] should now be attributed to the early Church or to the historical Jesus, and the nature of the synoptic tradition is such that the burden of proof will be upon the claim to authenticity” (his italics).1
Against this radical approach moderate and conservative scholars directed two lines of argument. One sought to demonstrate the general reliability of the gospel traditions and the NT Gospels. The other sought to demonstrate the authenticity of the individual traditions. The former involved several approaches. These included attacking the radical presuppositions of much form criticism and arguing instead that during the period between the death and resurrection of Jesus and the writing of the canonical Gospels the tradition was supervised carefully by the “eyewitnesses and servants of the word,”2 which is exactly what the earliest historical account referring to the transmission of the gospel traditions states:
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (Luke 1:1–4)3
One cannot simply ignore or dismiss the role of the eyewitnesses in the transmission process of the Gospel traditions as easily as the radical form critics do. Their role in this process was already established during the ministry of Jesus when they were sent out to proclaim His words and deeds (cf. Mark 6:7–13,30). A second argument in favor of the general reliability of the NT Gospels involves the traditional claim that they were authored by eyewitnesses (Matthew with the first Gospel and John with the fourth) and by companions of eyewitnesses (Mark with Peter, Luke with Paul).4 Conservative scholars tend to argue for such “apostolic” authorship and radical scholars against this. The apologetic concern that lies behind such views is evident. The former seek to defend the early claims of such ties found in the tradition because this would mean that eyewitnesses are responsible for the Gospel accounts and it is difficult to claim that all the miracles they reported were either misunderstood natural events or completely fabricated by them.5 On the other hand, radical scholars must reject any real tie between the Gospel writers and the miracle stories they reported because they are working with the presupposition that miracles do not and cannot occur. Thus, of necessity, they must attribute the origin and transmission of such accounts to those who were not eyewitnesses and had no association with the eyewitnesses (i.e., to the “anonymous church”).
The second line of argument developed against the views of radical form critics involves the attempt to establish the authenticity of individual accounts found in the Gospels. These efforts sought to determine the probability of such accounts being “authentic”6 by means of certain “criteria.”