#internalevidence

What is “Eyewitness Testimony” in the New Testament and Who Are the “Eyewitnesses”?

By Author Eli Kittim

It’s important to note that the gospels are later embellishments, not firsthand accounts, and their historicity and authorship are disputed. Thus, the purported author of John’s Gospel, who by the way is writing in refined Greek, couldn’t have been the alleged Aramaic disciple of Jesus not only because he wouldn’t be able to write in sophisticated Greek but also because he wouldn’t have been alive around 100 CE.

So, what exactly does “eyewitness testimony” mean in the New Testament (NT)?

In the NT, the term “eyewitness” doesn’t necessarily mean witnessing physical-bodily phenomena. For example, Paul claims to be an “eyewitness” of Christ (1 Cor. 15.8), yet by his own self-confession his entire knowledge of Christ is based solely on revelations (Gal. 1.11-12; Acts 9.3-5). Scholars are in agreement that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. By comparison, it is explicitly stated in Luke’s gospel that the group of women at the tomb saw a “vision” (24.23–24), similar to that of the “witnesses” who were said to be “chosen beforehand” (προκεχειροτονημένοις) in Acts 10.40–41. “Beforehand” means “in advance.” It implies a foreknowledge that is spiritually discerned prior to the experience of an event. In short: it represents a prophecy! But there is more.

For example, in 2 Peter 1.16-19 the apostles are said to be “eyewitnesses” not of physical phenomena but rather of “the prophetic message.” Astoundingly, they’re eyewitnesses of visual and auditory messages (voices & visions) that were heard, literally, as voices, but were nevertheless part of a so-called “prophecy” or prediction:

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain [meaning, in the Spirit]. So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed” (emphasis added).

Similarly, First Peter 1.10-11 suggests an eschatological soteriology (cf. Heb. 1.1-2; 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20), that is to say, “the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” were actually “PREDICTED” in advance:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow” (emphasis added).

——-

(If you want to further explore the exegetical details of the aforementioned quote, click on the following link):

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184378109027/by-eli-kittim-concerning-this-salvation-the

——-

So, when John’s Gospel introduces itself as the composition of a so-called “eyewitness” to the events of Jesus’ lifetime (“who saw” something; Jn 19.35), it may be talking about history-written-in-advance, similar to the Book of Revelation (cf. 4.1-2), which is explicitly referred to as a Book of “prophecy” (1.3; 22.7, 10, 18-19), a book that is also believed by Christian tradition to have been penned by the same apostle, “who saw” the end of days!

Hence both 2 Peter and the Book of Revelation are two very clear examples where “Eyewitness testimony” is explicitly related to prophecy, that is to say, “history written in advance”! Put differently, the gospel narratives are seemingly set in a transhistorical context. Transhistoricity, in other words, is the flip side of the notion that NT meanings are restricted to their historical context. Therefore, the so-called “eyewitnesses testimonies” are actually referring to visions pertaining to prophetic events. That’s why the account or “testimony” to Jesus is NOT historical but “prophetic”:

“For the testimony to Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

—(Rev. 19.10d The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: NRSV [4th rev. edn; New York: Oxford University, 2010], p. 2176, n.e.).

If Jesus was a historical figure, who supposedly existed prior to the composition of the Book of Revelation, shouldn’t his “testimony” be the Spirit of history? And yet, by contrast, his “testimony” is explicitly referred to as “the spirit of prophecy.” Something to think about.

The argument that Jesus has not yet come is based on both the internal and external evidence

The “external evidence” demonstrates that there are no firsthand accounts (the gospel writers are not eyewitnesses). There are also no independent secular accounts of Jesus until the close of the first century CE. Josephus’ “Testimonium Flavianum,” toward the turn of the century, is considered as unacceptable evidence by most scholars due to extensive interpolations. Even Tacitus’ later account represents an obvious interpolation. Similarly, Philo’s silence on Jesus, despite being a contemporary, suggests that Jesus could not have been a historical figure. So, despite Jesus’ so-called extraordinary feats, no one is writing anything about him outside of the NT for almost 70y. Not a single word is written about Jesus, there’s not even a passive reference to him, even though we have a lot of documents from that period dealing with just about every aspect of life, political and otherwise.

The “internal evidence” is equally strong. Besides the end-time, messianic death-and-resurrection themes that are clearly addressed in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa. 2.2, 19; Dan. 12.1-2; Zeph. 1.7, 14-18; and Zech. 12.10), there are many such motifs also found in the NT! The evidence from the NT is sometimes rather explicit and quite compelling. For example, Hebrews 1.2 clearly states that God speaks to humanity through his Son in the “last days” (ἐπ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). Notice that the “last days” represent an eschatological time-period that is obviously distinguished from “long ago,” in other words, it is differentiated from the time of Antiquity in verse 1. But, even more explicit is the verse from Heb. 9.26b:

“once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

——-

https://biblehub.com/hebrews/9-26.htm

——-

Proper Biblical Exegesis demands that we understand NT Greek. The Greek text in Heb. 9.26b reads as follows:

ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται.

The term ἅπαξ (hapax) means “once for all.” The Greek phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων (i.e., “at the end of the age”) is a reference to “the end of the world” or “the consummation of the ages” (cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX). Whenever this Greek phrase appears in the NT it is invariably referring to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20, etc.). There are also parallel verses and verbal agreements in which the overall linguistic meaning of this phrase is confirmed by the Patristic Fathers of that period: τόν . . . υιόν . . . ερχόμενον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ του αἰωνος κρίναι ζώντας καί νεκρούς (G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford University, 1961], p. 1340). The translation of which is that the Son will judge the living and the dead at the end of the world!

Therefore, the eschatological phrase συντελείας του αιωνος (which is usually translated as “the end of the age”) can ONLY refer to the END OF THE WORLD! And Hebrews 9.26b tells us unequivocally and categorically that this is ALSO the TIME when Christ DIES for the SINS (εἰς ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας) of the world. The meaning is quite obvious. But that’s not all. There are many, many other NT passages that CONFIRM this view.

First Peter 1.20 is a case in point:

“He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time.”

It is quite explicit. Once again, “the final point of time” (επ´ έσχάτου των χρόνων) refers to the culmination or consummation of the ages. And this is the time period when Christ will be initially “revealed,” according to 1 Peter 1.20 (cf. Lk 17.30; 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Jn 2.28). Then there are other passages that I can’t get into right now due to time restrictions, such as Rev. 12.5, where Christ is born in the end-times as a contemporary of the final world-empire which is depicted as a red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns. Rev. 6.2 equally shows that the first horseman that will appear in the end times is Christ! To understand why the white horse of Rev. 6.2 represents Christ, please look at the following link from my blog.

——-

https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/168159235542/who-is-the-first-horseman-of-the-apocalypse

——-

I could cite many more examples, but I think you get the idea . . . Incidentally, the notion that Jesus will appear “once and for all” (hapax; Heb. 9.26b) in the end-times does not change anything whatsoever soteriologically speaking. In other words, it’s not a salvation issue because, according to the NT, we are saved IN FAITH as we “eagerly await a Savior” (Phil. 3.20) “for a salvation that is ready to be revealed at the end of time (1 Pet. 1.5).

Conclusion