As Greco-Roman biographies, we should not be surprised that the Gospel authors would want to include eyewitness testimony. After all, the principle that historical accounts should be based on eyewitness reports (either directly indirectly) was an established value among all the ancient historians ranging from Herodotus to Thucydides to Polybius and even to Josephus.
But the issue isn’t just whether they would have wanted to include such testimony, but whether reliable eyewitness testimony was readily available. Put in the form of a question, were there named individuals in the early Christian movement who were understood to have witnessed the events related to Jesus of Nazareth and were actively engaged in transmitting their testimony about those events?
Across a wide range of our earliest Christian sources, it is evident that the apostles, originally known as “the Twelve,” were not only understood to be eyewitnesses, but also those who actively transmitted Christian tradition. This is not to suggest the Twelve were the only named eyewitnesses, or the only ones transmitting the tradition. But certainly, any assessment of eyewitnesses in early Christianity would need to begin with the Twelve.
Apart from a few exceptions, most scholars today accept the historicity of the Twelve as firmly established. The Synoptic Gospels each list the Twelve by name (Matt 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16; cf. Acts 1:13) and portray Jesus as commissioning the Twelve “to be with him and to be sent out to preach and have authority” (Mark 3:14–15).
The theme of the Twelve being present with Jesus, and under his tutelage, is common in the Gospels, especially in Mark (e.g., 4:10; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:17). In John’s Gospel, Jesus affirms the eyewitness role of the apostles as the basis for their mission, “you also are witnesses because you have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:27).
Luke makes it clear that his Gospel is rooted in the testimony of those “who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (1:2), a clear reference to the apostles, though it may have also included others. At the end of his Gospel, Luke reiterates this same point when Jesus tells the disciples, “You are witnesses of these things” (Luke 24:48).
In the book of Acts, Luke affirms the importance of eyewitnesses again when we are told that Judas’s apostolic replacement must have “accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us…[and] a witness to his resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22). The eyewitness theme is mentioned yet again when Peter testifies that the apostles were “chosen by God as witnesses who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (Acts 10:41).
In a similar manner, Paul acknowledges “the apostles before me” (Gal 1:17), mentions several apostles by name (e.g., James, Peter and John) as “pillars” of the church (Gal 2:8-9), and describes them as key eyewitnesses to the resurrection (1 Cor 15:5-6). Also, the book of 1 Peter presents Peter as a “witness of the sufferings of Christ” (5:1), and 2 Peter presents Peter and the other apostles as “eyewitnesses” to the transfiguration (1:16), and affirms that the teachings of Jesus are transmitted “through your apostles” (3:2).
The above evidence (and more could be added), makes it quite clear that during the first century the Twelve were known by name as individuals who were actively transmitting Jesus tradition, and given their proximity to Jesus and their commission by Jesus, this tradition would have been regarded as especially desirable.
Ok, so here we come to the key issue, and a issue that (I would argue) is often overlooked. What is the likelihood that four Gospels written in the first century would include none of that eyewitness tradition?
Here we should observe that there is a fairly wide consensus among modern scholars not only that our four Gospels are from the first century, but that they are our only Gospels from the first century. Why does this matter?
Because, as scholars like Craig Keener argue, biographies written at a time when the main subject can still be remembered by eyewitnesses “warrant more respect as historical sources than do others” because it’s more likely they have drawn upon “substantial collective memory” (Christobiography, 17).
Now, one may argue that this doesn’t prove that the Gospels contain eyewitness testimony. Isn’t it possible for four first-century Gospels to be written that contain zero instances of eyewitness testimony.
Yep, that’s correct. Our argument here does not prove the Gospels contain eyewitness testimony. But I would argue that historians aren’t looking for absolute proof. Nor are they are merely looking for what’s possible (lots of things are possible).
Rather they are looking for what’s plausible or likely. And I think anyone that’s fair with the evidence would have a difficult time saying it’s likely that four first-century Gospels happened to find a way to avoid all eyewitness testimony when they were written in a context, and during at time period, when such testimony was known, highly valued, and readily available.