Why were the Gospels written down?

[Apollonius]

A new religio-philosophical movement has to present the genesis of his existence as it were. As for the gospel accounts, these were written down long after the events they claim to have witnessed, and as with all such cases in general the accounts were told and retold, first by word of mouth and then by written documents. As the story progressed in terms of taking on new elements no doubt the older accounts were then gathered and destroyed by the early Church fathers in an effort to present the accounts as being original rather than having grown out of a larger body of earlier traditions. Likewise, the gospel accounts were drawn from various 'mystery religions' among the Greco-Roman peoples and those of the Levant, thus the Church fathers all the more seen the need to hide the fact of their own crafty handiwork.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

This did not dissuade folks from writing stuff down, though.

Romans had burned the writings of other religious groups before Christianity, and Jews were persecuted by Greeks before that... burning the Torah was required by Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

The Christian writings are mentioned in some of the earliest persecutions.

The oldest Roman to persecute Christians was Pliny the Younger, who describes his understanding of Christian worship, which corresponds with the writings of Paul:

they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.

The oldest Christian writing from South Africa - 180CE...

Medieval Sourcebook: The Passion Of The Scillitan Martyrs

Saturninus the proconsul said: What are the things in your chest?

Speratus said: Books and epistles of Paul, a just man.

Saturninus the proconsul said: Have a delay of thirty days and bethink yourselves.

Speratus said a second time: I am a Christian. And with him they all agreed.

Saturninus the proconsul read out the decree from the tablet: Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Vestia, Secunda and the rest having confessed that they live according to the Christian rite, since after opportunity offered them of returning to the custom of the Romans they have obstinately persisted, it is determined that they be put to the sword.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

I don't know of another religion that was founded in a similar way as Christianity, with a dynamic group of people spreading the religion and several people influencing it through writings.

Paul founded many churches and tried to manage them with letters and ambassadors, and there was also continued interaction with many other Christian groups.... several variations of Gnostics and other "heretics," all of whom were persecuted equally by Rome.

The closest thing - to my mind - is the founding of philosophical schools and the preservation and spread through letters, but these letters often come long after the fact and are suspended in mystery. [That is, in the first and second centuries, Pythagoreanism and Neo-Platonism develop pseudepigrapha].

 

[Willamena]

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?

Because the printing press is a relatively recent development?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Because the printing press is a relatively recent development?

:biglaugh:

 

[logician]

Apparently, the Gospels were handed down through an oral tradition for decades and decades. ?

There's absolutely no evidence to back this statement- sheer conjecture.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There's absolutely no evidence to back this statement- sheer conjecture.

Said the monkey screwing the coconut.

 

[dogsgod]

Said the monkey screwing the coconut.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.[/FONT]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's absolutely no evidence to back this statement- sheer conjecture.

What's your alternative? That they were handed down by angels pre-made and leather-bound?

 

[logician]

Said the monkey screwing the coconut.

Personal attacks by the staff? What's this forum coming to?

 

[logician]

What's your alternative? That they were handed down by angels pre-made and leather-bound?

If you're talking about the "gospels", i.e. texts written by unknown people they could easily have just been made up - the original writer of Mark being the basis for Matthew, Mark and Luke. Let's face it, unless you believe all the miracles of the gospels, much of it HAD to be made up. It's not hard to believe the rest of it could have been too.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you're talking about the "gospels", i.e. texts written by unknown people they could easily have just been made up - the original writer of Mark being the basis for Matthew, Mark and Luke. Let's face it, unless you believe all the miracles of the gospels, much of it HAD to be made up. It's not hard to believe the rest of it could have been too.

So you think that it's impossible for "made up stories" to be in oral form before they are written?

AND

The written form of Mark HAD to be the source for Matthew and Luke?


I like that you said that Mark is the source for Mark.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you're talking about the "gospels", i.e. texts written by unknown people they could easily have just been made up - the original writer of Mark being the basis for Matthew, Mark and Luke.

I'm talking about the Gospel story, not necessarily the exact text of any particular Gospel we have today.

What I was trying to get at in the OP is to distinguish the Gospels from other books like the Epistles that were in written form from the outset.

Let's face it, unless you believe all the miracles of the gospels, much of it HAD to be made up. It's not hard to believe the rest of it could have been too.

I haven't touched on anything about whether the Gospels are factual. My point was just that, whatever their source, they were handed down orally for decades before they were put to paper. My question is why were they put to paper then as opposed to earlier or later?

If there was a strong push to get them in "permanent" or "authoritative" written form, why didn't this happen sooner?

If there wasn't this push, then why write them down at all? In a society where very few people were literate, wouldn't they represent a major expenditure of resources and effort for relatively little gain?

Or am I looking at this the wrong way? Could it be that people started writing the story down as soon as they had it, but my viewpoint is skewed by thinking that the beginning of evidence we have today coincides with some actual event in the past?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If there was a strong push to get them in "permanent" or "authoritative" written form, why didn't this happen sooner?

Well, the best answer is that they had people in their communities who could tell their stories that served as authorities (ie, Paul and other Christian missionaries).

 

[logician]

I'm talking about the Gospel story, not necessarily the exact text of any particular Gospel we have today.

What I was trying to get at in the OP is to distinguish the Gospels from other books like the Epistles that were in written form from the outset.


I haven't touched on anything about whether the Gospels are factual. My point was just that, whatever their source, they were handed down orally for decades before they were put to paper. My question is why were they put to paper then as opposed to earlier or later?

If there was a strong push to get them in "permanent" or "authoritative" written form, why didn't this happen sooner?

If there wasn't this push, then why write them down at all? In a society where very few people were literate, wouldn't they represent a major expenditure of resources and effort for relatively little gain?

Or am I looking at this the wrong way? Could it be that people started writing the story down as soon as they had it, but my viewpoint is skewed by thinking that the beginning of evidence we have today coincides with some actual event in the past?

UH, if they were fabrications by whomever wrote MArk, they did not have to be HANDED down from anyone, they were invented on the spot. Are you implying that the stories of miracles HAD to be handed down instead of made up?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

UH, if they were fabrications by whomever wrote MArk, they did not have to be HANDED down from anyone, they were invented on the spot. Are you implying that the stories of miracles HAD to be handed down instead of made up?

I'm saying that they were handed down orally before they were written down, yes. I'm not saying anything about whether they were fabricated before they were handed down orally.

You do realize that the fact that the Gospel story existed as oral tradition before it was written doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on whether the content of the story is correct, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, the best answer is that they had people in their communities who could tell their stories that served as authorities (ie, Paul and other Christian missionaries).

Good point. In that respect, I suppose you could approach the Gospels as a Christian version of the Sikh Guru Granth Sahib: a teacher in the form of a written work.

 

[logician]

I'm saying that they were handed down orally before they were written down, yes. I'm not saying anything about whether they were fabricated before they were handed down orally.

You do realize that the fact that the Gospel story existed as oral tradition before it was written doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on whether the content of the story is correct, right?

Yes, but I do not accept that stories written about miracles in any way had to be
"handed down", there's no logic in it.

 

[JustWondering2]

Better question. Who decide which book went in the Bible and which didn't? A roman King of all people. There were many other Gospel of time that were not included and who know why? To protect the church!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm saying that they were handed down orally before they were written down, yes. I'm not saying anything about whether they were fabricated before they were handed down orally.

You do realize that the fact that the Gospel story existed as oral tradition before it was written doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on whether the content of the story is correct, right?

Actually, in my opinion, it does.

Oberon, for example, believes that the Gospels as we have them have some kernel of eyewitness truth in them - that existed in oral form and then was written down. This puts him in the precarious position of assuming that (1) the early Christians were able to pass down somewhat reliable information preserved in a relatively unchanged form and (2) conveniently some of the eyewitnesses were incorrect in their interpretation of what they saw.

So the eyewitnesses and the community were able to preserve the witness but the witness itself is incorrect. Of course this is probable, but I find it very difficult to accept. They were very competent in one respect and completely incompetent in another... and we're not talking mistaking epilepsy for demon possession. We're talking the resurrection from the dead, the blind seeing, and a huge feeding miracle.

I don't criticize Oberon for this - I just can't believe that he's not allowing himself to participate in the existential aspect of the dogma because he believes his method gets him so close to the witness.