Why were the Gospels written down?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This popped into my head the other day. I wonder if anyone here can shed light on it:

Apparently, the Gospels were handed down through an oral tradition for decades and decades. Then, they were written down. But why were they written down? And why then?

It seems that oral tradition was working for them (or was it?); why the decision to change things?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I suppose because there were differing ideas about Jesus circulating, and they figured it best to write down their traditions or ideas about him.

 

[dogsgod]

How does one know there was an oral tradition?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This popped into my head the other day. I wonder if anyone here can shed light on it:

Apparently, the Gospels were handed down through an oral tradition for decades and decades. Then, they were written down. But why were they written down? And why then?

It seems that oral tradition was working for them (or was it?); why the decision to change things?

This continues to puzzle me, given the 97% illiteracy rate in the first and second centuries.

Almost everyone is illiterate, and early Christian groups (both gnostic and proto-Gnostic) produced a handsome amount of literature.

I would say that the Gospels were written down to both imbibe the oral tradition with authority and to save it for posterity. The ancients did know that the written word was immortal, whereas the spoken word is more easily changed.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Now the question- Which accounts are the most accurate? The Christian or the Gnostic?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now the question- Which accounts are the most accurate? The Christian or the Gnostic?

That's a good question...

There's only one sentence (or perhaps three) from the Gospel of Thomas that have survived from this early period, and these teachings roughly correspond with the life and teachings in the Gospels.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well I have noticed something of interest in my observation. The Gnostic Gospels seem to be more of just a collection of sayings, without any real details about where Jesus went and what he did. Wheras the synoptic gospels give accounts of places he went, they seem to have been written in a different style. So either the Gnostic tradition didn't know as many details about his life, or they focused strictly on the teachings.

 

[dogsgod]

And where were the gospels written?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well I have noticed something of interest in my observation. The Gnostic Gospels seem to be more of just a collection of sayings, without any real details about where Jesus went and what he did. Wheras the synoptic gospels give accounts of places he went, they seem to have been written in a different style. So either the Gnostic tradition didn't know as many details about his life, or they focused strictly on the teachings.

No, that would be only the Gospel of Thomas, which is mostly concerned with Q-like teachings but is concerned with certain biographical information (like the role of Mary Magdalene).

The other Gnostic writings are quite different and approach Jesus on almost an entirely mystical level.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And where were the gospels written?

On paper.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I doubt that the Gospels were ever an oral tradition....
However the stories the Gospel Authors chose to include almost certainly were part of a tradition.
This would in part, at least explain why there is a large cross over of stories between them, and why the detail differs so much.

We know little of the Gnostic Gospels, those few parts that exist like the Gospels of Mary and Thomas are rare survivors from a large body of work that was very effectively suppressed and destroyed. (We know there were many more examples, as their existence mentioned in other early writings.)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

On paper.

velum parchment or papyrus more likely....

 

[sandandfoam]

AE I'd like to ask your opinion of Spong's argument that supernaturalism is absent from the earliest NT books and the further they (i.e. NT books) get in time away from the events they describe the more supernatural they become.
Is his point valid or not?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

velum parchment or papyrus more likely....

Fits the definition of paper in my book.

 

[bobhikes]

This popped into my head the other day. I wonder if anyone here can shed light on it:

Apparently, the Gospels were handed down through an oral tradition for decades and decades. Then, they were written down. But why were they written down? And why then?

It seems that oral tradition was working for them (or was it?); why the decision to change things?

Written word gives something athority. All through out humankind once there was writing leaders recorded laws and held the papers for the illiterate to see. Seeing the words in a case before them gives them life that speech alone cannot.

It also insures the words will be repeated exactly over and over again. You know the joke tell one person the sky is a nice blue today pass it on and after 10 people you will get you have a pretty smile.

Especially in today's society. Tell someone that the pope did jumping jack in the vatican and people will laugh at you put it on the internet in writing and it may actually be reported on the new at 11.

I don't know how it effects us but written word is much stronger than speech.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

AE I'd like to ask your opinion of Spong's argument that supernaturalism is absent from the earliest NT books and the further they (i.e. NT books) get in time away from the events they describe the more supernatural they become.
Is his point valid or not?

Well, Paul wrote the earliest Christian letters, and there is plenty of supernaturalism in these texts.

However, Q has very few miracle stories... and if it is true that Gnosticism pre-dates proto-Orthodoxy, Spong's theory is precisely opposite. The stories began more supernatural and worked their way into history.

 

[Autodidact]

It's an interesting question. We can't know, so we can make stuff up. I'm going to throw into the mix that the early Christians were Jews, that is, people of the book. The Torah is venerated as a gift from God to the Jewish people. I know not many people then could read any language, but (don't know, just speculating now) I'm guessing were still among the more literate people of the area? So I think all that factored into it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This continues to puzzle me, given the 97% illiteracy rate in the first and second centuries.

Almost everyone is illiterate, and early Christian groups (both gnostic and proto-Gnostic) produced a handsome amount of literature.

I would say that the Gospels were written down to both imbibe the oral tradition with authority and to save it for posterity. The ancients did know that the written word was immortal, whereas the spoken word is more easily changed.

But there are other ways to make oral material more fixed... for example, by turning it into songs or poetry like the Psalms.

I think it's especially interesting that the first written Christian gospels are dated to the period when Christian persecution by the Romans had gotten underway. Maybe it's logical that both would've been the result of the expansion of this new religion, but when I try to put myself in the shoes of an early Christian, I don't think I'd necessarily want to have physical material that would link me to an outlawed "cult". I mean, under the environment that Nero or Trajan created, would you want to be caught with a copy of one of the Gospels?

Was this par for the course? Do you know whether other new religious groups around the same time recorded their scriptures in a similar way, or were the Christians unique in this regard?

 

[logician]

How does one know there was an oral tradition?

One doesn't, in fact, there most certainly wasn't one, i.e. the gospels were works of fiction to invent a Chirst for their religion, not a recording of oral tradition of some real person, which is obvious since they are chock full of impossible things i.e. miracles.

 

[dogsgod]

One doesn't, in fact, there most certainly wasn't one, i.e. the gospels were works of fiction to invent a Chirst for their religion, not a recording of oral tradition of some real person, which is obvious since they are chock full of impossible things i.e. miracles.

True enough, though there probably was bits and pieces borrowed from oral traditions that were strung together like beads on a string to form a story.

That there was an oral tradition for a few decades before the writing relies on the a priori presumption that the story took place a few decades prior to the writing of the story. Don't we just love circular reasoning?