Stemming from the release of the second edition of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2017), the EerdCast has a new 48-minute interview with Richard Bauckham.
HT: Rick Brannan. For other discussion of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, see âBauckham, âJesus and the Eyewitnessesâ (2nd ed.),â âBauckham on the Gospels as Historical Sources,â and âGospel and Testimony.â
[caption id=âattachment_2129â align=âalignrightâ width=â87â] 
Richard Bauckham[/caption]
In his 2006 Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham suggests:
that we need to recover the sense in which the Gospels are testimony. This does not mean that they are testimony rather than history. It means that the kind of historiography they are is testimony. An irreducible feature of testimony as a form of human utterance is that it asks to be trusted. This does not mean that it asks to be trusted uncritically, but it does mean that testimony should not be treated as credible only to the extent that it can be independently verified. There can be good reasons for trusting or distrusting a witness, but these are precisely reasons for trusting or distrusting. Trusting testimony is not an irrational act of faith that leaves critical rationality aside; it is, on the contrary, the rationally appropriate way of responding to authentic testimony. . . . It is true that a powerful trend in the modern development of critical historical philosophy and method finds trusting testimony a stumbling-block in the way of the historianâs autonomous access to truth that she or he can verify independently. But it is also a rather neglected fact that all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony. ( 5; italics original)
...