The Gospels: Who’s Who on the Witness Stand?

Newsletter Article for December 2025

Introduction

Last month I wrote about how you can trust your Bibles and that you can with good certainty trust that Gospel’s were written by their traditional authors. You don’t just trust the traditional understanding because it’s tradition, but there are clues in the texts themselves that betray authors who sound a lot like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, from what we know of them in Gospels and New Testament.

When considering the eyewitness testimony, we have not only the witness of the Gospel writers themselves but their sources. I mentioned last month that, for example, Mark is writing Peter’s Gospel. But that the author’s had sources shouldn’t bother us, nor does it undermine our understanding of inspiration. Just consider the following phrase from Esther and a refrain (used 105 times) throughout 1 Kings and 2 Kings.

“Now all the acts of his power and his might, and the account of the greatness of Mordecai, to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?” (Esther 10:2) “now the rest of the acts of … are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of” either “Judah” or “Israel.” (1 Ki 14:19, 29; etc.)

The Spirit inspired the use of these records for His Word, but did not inspire them. So it is with the Gospels. Our Lord did a great many things! “If they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25) While He did them, there was no inspired retelling of Christ doing them. We turn our attention not to unknowns, but to the actual inspired retelling of what many saw.

So, we come to Luke’s preface to his Gospel. He was not an eyewitness, but he is inspired to say and write based on eyewitnesses. “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.” (Lk 1:1–4) Thus Luke tracks down the eyewitnesses and recounts an orderly account based upon them.

The testimony of the Gospels is the same. In fact, it’s the same purpose behind all the eyewitnesses that the Gospel writers may or may not have used. It’s a matter of WHAT they witnessed with their own two eyes and heard with their own two ears. They saw the resurrected Christ after He had suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried. (See also 1 Cor 15:3–8.) We trust not only their eyewitness testimony as a faithful retelling of real history, but we trust what those events mean for us and the whole world! Jesus Christ is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29), and “He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification,” (Rom 4), and “if He was not raised our faith is futile.” (1 Cor 15)

Complementary vs Contradictory

Before we get to dipping our toes in the weeds, I’ve to mention how we perceive supposed problems with the history recorded in the Gospels. Those who want to deny the Scriptures, destroy any historical claims in different ways. One is through manuscript transmission, which a whole topic in itself! Another way is to deal with “problem passages” that fly in the face of our human reason—usually a problem with Old Testament passages. Another way, which fits with the topic at hand, is to claim that contradictions abound.

It betrays their own worldview when “contradiction” is their default solution. They betray also their own self-proclaimed superiority to the Gospel writers when they supposedly know better how even a single Evangelist should’ve written his Gospel. They multiply and magnify their “Contradiction!” when they start comparing the accounts to themselves. But contradiction makes little sense when working with authors that seem to have an awareness of each other, and it makes the least sense when working within one Gospel.

For example, the Feedings of the 5,000 and the 4,000 are not variants of the same story. As if Matthew and Mark wouldn’t be aware of that! Or for another example: were there two angels (Luke and John) or one (Matthew, Mark)? Here we come to the solution, that is not contradiction. The Gospel writers compliment each other. One doesn’t repeat in the exact same way as another the same story. In fact, as parents, police, and teachers know, if the stories of children, criminals, and students line up 100% in every way, something’s wrong! And the truth is the opponents know this, too. They’d complain if there were no problem passages, everything lined up neatly 100%, and the Evangelists told the exact same story in all respects.

This lets us know that we have truly four witnesses on the witness stand, even though they rely on some details from others as well. Even though Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell mostly the same things in the same order, nevertheless each has his own way of telling it. Again, this isn’t a negative for eyewitness testimony, but it’s just the nature of the beast. As if my retelling of Sarah’s and my engagement is exactly the same as hers. We emphasize different aspects, but our testimonies aren’t contradictory but rather complimentary. Newsflash!—she said, “Yes!” In terms of the Gospels, newsflash!—Christ is risen!

Who Is On First

The first clue that something’s up with the testimony in the Gospels (and Acts) is the names. There is a great duplication and multiplication of names! We’re told of John the Baptizer, John the son of Zebedee (Apostle), and John Mark (Evangelist). There is Simon, son of John, who’s called Peter (Apostle) With that Simon you’ve also got Simon the Zealot (Apostle), Simon Magus, Simeon, Simon of Cyrene, and Simon the step-brother of our Lord. There’s also James the son of Zebedee (Apostle), James the son of Alphaeus (Apostle), and James the step-brother of our Lord. In terms of the guys, you finally have Judas/Jude the son of James (Apostle), Judas Iscariot (Apostle), and Jude the step-brother of our Lord. This tells us that among the Twelve Apostles there were two Simons, two Jameses, two Johns, two Judases. Are you confused yet?

With the ladies there’s also a multiplication—of Marys! There is the Blessèd Virgin Mary. There’s Mary Magdalene. There’s Mary the sister of Lazarus. There’s even “the other Mary!” We’re also told that John Mark’s mom was named Mary! Who’s on first, again?

What should we make of all this? It confesses the truth of what’s written! When writing fiction characters rarely—if ever!—have the same name. Yet we know from historical records that James, John, Mary, and Simon were all popular names around the time of Christ. Thus, the multiplication of names doesn’t speak against but rather boldly speaks for the historicity of what’s written.

Who Saw What

The names are also used by the Gospel writers to tell us who their sources are. The clearest example this Advent is Luke and the Blessèd Virgin Mary. It’s safe to say that Christmas would be a radically difference celebration had the Spirit not inspired Luke. There’d be no programs, hardly any carols, and no Charlie Brown with the highpoint of Linus’ recitation! Each Christmas is a joyous celebration not only of our Savior’s birth, but it can also be a time of thanking the Lord for Luke’s testimony, which he got from the Blessèd Virgin Mary.

Again, Luke never claimed to see anything he wrote (Lk 1:1–4). He said he got it from others. One of those others was the Blessèd Virgin. Of Christ’s birth narrative were told that “Mary preserved all these things, pondering them in her heart.” (Lk 2:19) Of 11-year-old Christ in the temple were told “His mother maintained all these things in her heart.” (Lk 2:51) It’s no coincidence that Luke includes these after narratives that only he includes. It’s also important that when reading the Acts of the Apostles that Luke is with Paul during his time in Ephesus (Acts 19). Earliest tradition (c. AD 180) places John the Apostle there, and he cared for the Blessèd Virgin Mary (Jn 19).

A couple more witnesses from the Gospel of Mark: Alexander and Rufus. Who are they you might wonder. They are the sons of Simon of Cyrene, who helped Christ carry His cross. Mark includes this detail: “Then they compelled a certain man, Simon a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by, to bear His cross.” (Mk 15:21) Only Mark includes their names. This could mean they were Mark’s (Peter’s) source for this, since neither were there. This could also mean that Alexander and Rufus were well known among the Christians to whom Mark was sending his Gospel. Either way, the dare is the same: if you don’t believe Mark, go track these guys down and ask them! This echoes Paul’s own argument for the Resurrection: 500 saw Christ at one time, most are still alive. (1 Cor 15) With the implicit command: “If you don’t believe me, go ask them!”

Conclusion

We trust the eyewitness testimony. The names in the Gospels let us know first that true history was being written. Second, they names can give us a clue as to the source the Gospel writer may be relying on in his testimony. Again, the inclusion of all this is inspired by the Holy Spirit! He inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to bear witness to what they or others had seen and heard. He took up their style and sanctified it to be His Word, He took up their witness as His own, even taken up the witness of others as His own, like that of Alexander and Rufus.

Again, you can trust your Bibles. They are eyewitness testimony. Besides, that they are the Word of God. No matter the book, their intent is the same as what John signs as his inspired reasoning for writing what he did: “These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.” (Jn 20)