Eyewitness Testimony of Peter and John

Eyewitness Testimony

Some of the New Testament authors explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. For example, it’s claimed in 2 Peter 1:16 that 'We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.' Similarly, 1 John 1:1,3 states that 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched ... we proclaim to you what we have seen and heard.'

This does not prove that they actually were eyewitnesses, only that they claimed it. The authors also claim they are telling the truth and not lying, eg.Rom. 9.1. We should be willing to investigate whether they were or not. In Luke's prologue (Luke 1:1-4) he makes note of the importance of speaking with eyewitnesses. Also, Peter's insistence on replacing Judas Iscariot with someone who had personally observed what had occurred (Acts 1:21-22) demonstrates the firsthand eyewitnesses. Ancient historians did not value recording the exact words spoken by an individual as highly as we value it today. Instead, ancient historians attempted to communicate a speaker’s intended meaning. Therefore, while different authors may record a speaker's words differently, their testimonies can still be reliable if they are in agreement. Additionally, if the stories in the Gospel were all related in exactly the same way, we might suspect the authors were merely copying (colluding with) each other. 'If the Gospels were too consistent,' notes Craig Blomberg, 'that itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses.'

...The New Testament includes certain incidental details that would be hard to comprehend unless they are the result of eyewitness testimony. One example is recorded in John 19:34. After Jesus dies on the cross, John notes that 'one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.' Death by crucifixion occurred due to two primary causes: hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia (asphyxiation). One consequence of the person going into hypovolemic shock and also being asphyxiated (unable to draw in breath) was that water would collect around the pericardium, the sac surrounding the heart. Thus when the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus’ side with the spear (which was not common procedure for crucifixions) the wall of the pericardium was pierced, resulting in a flow of both blood from the heart itself and water from the surrounding sac. Even though he would have no idea why he saw blood and water pour out, John’s description of the scene is entirely consistent with modern medical conclusions about what would have happened. John would have had none of this modern medical knowledge; he merely recorded what he saw. How could John have known that if a person who had just been crucified were stabbed in the chest that blood and water would run out unless he witnessed it?

John describes himself in the first person as "I" in John stating himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved most. Due to persecution he had to be careful not to state his authorship everywhere so he could finish all 5 books as evident by his imprisonment at Patmos. There are unique markers or phrases that run throughout John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation only used by John to know it is John. John who saw Jesus alive from the dead was one of the original eyewitness Apostles, including himself as he records the various accounts. Such attributes don't fit John the Evangelist as being the author. He records he is the only Apostle present at the crucifixion. He reports in 1 John he saw Jesus alive from the dead. In Revelation he testifies again he saw Jesus resurrected. He told Polycarp, a student of John still in the first century, these things. Such high standards of historical reporting, to not accept these facts is just being ignorant. Details of this sort strongly indicate that the New Testament is a result of eyewitness testimony regarding the events it describes. Until you are willing to apply a higher standard of critique on another ancient text that you accept as being true, you should accept all this verification if you were to be intellectually honest with yourself and hold no double standards between ancient texts.

Taken together, this evidence (as well as other lines of evidence) strongly suggests that Mark’s gospel and at least several of the other New Testament writings are based on eyewitness testimony.

http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3305-Eyewitness-Testimony-of-Mark-Peter-and-John