Why were the Gospels written down?

[Oberon]

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.

I agree with the first assertion (minus the "precarious" bit), but don't quite understand what you mean by the second.

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.

Most of the miracles performed are not unkown to the modern era, where there are still eyewitness accounts and personal testimony of miraculous healings. I don't find it hard to believe that Jesus was a healer in this way. And I don't find it hard to believe that even more impossible feats were added into the tradition despite the level of control I posit existed in the oral tradition.

What I will admit is difficult for me to explain is how the resurrection myth got in there.

because he believes his method gets him so close to the witness.

The bane of most historians- the desire to know that we can know what we want to know...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The bane of most historians- the desire to know that we can know what we want to know...

Yes, I am painfully aware of this.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

It seems to me that if the earliest Christian witnesses were able to effectively preserve their traditions (1), it is more likely that the tradition itself is true (2, restated). But the historical method that you have chosen provides basis for the establishment of (1) but cannot affirm the truth of the witness (2).

That's a strange paradox.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

(minus the "precarious" bit)

:biglaugh:

Yes, you've become quite comfortable where you are I see.

 

[Oberon]

It seems to me that if the earliest Christian witnesses were able to effectively preserve their traditions (1), it is more likely that the tradition itself is true (2, restated). But the historical method that you have chosen provides basis for the establishment of (1) but cannot affirm the truth of the witness (2).

That's a strange paradox.

Yes. The methods I employ to construct an oral model result in a fairly successful tool with which to analyze the gospels and some other early christian writings. There isn't much I can't account for (even the miracles) within that model, but the resurrection remains a problem. I can't easily account for it at all.

What stops me from therefore rejecting the model is that I have yet to find a better historical method to account for the resurrection. That Jesus rose from the dead is for me the least plausible of all. Jesus as just another "dying and resurrecting god" isn't much better.

So what happened for the earliest disciples to get together and preach a risen christ? I don't see how they could have gotten there from scripture. Perhaps a crisis of faith or collective delusion or even conspiracy, but there is little evidence for any and all seem unlikely.

I just don't know.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes. The methods I employ to construct an oral model result in a fairly successful tool with which to analyze the gospels and some other early christian writings. There isn't much I can't account for (even the miracles) within that model, but the resurrection remains a problem. I can't easily account for it at all.

What stops me from therefore rejecting the model is that I have yet to find a better historical method to account for the resurrection. That Jesus rose from the dead is for me the least plausible of all. Jesus as just another "dying and resurrecting god" isn't much better.

So what happened for the earliest disciples to get together and preach a risen christ? I don't see how they could have gotten there from scripture. Perhaps a crisis of faith or collective delusion or even conspiracy, but there is little evidence for any and all seem unlikely.

I just don't know.

But the problem remains: the resurrection story is quite significant in the earliest tradition, and Mark is built around the passion of Christ. Even the Gnostics had to deal with it.

Another significant problem is that resurrection from the dead is no less unbelievable today as it was 2,000 years ago, and I think that you're more intimately aware of that than I am.

We agree that the earliest witnesses at least believed that the resurrection of Christ occured in some way, and others were convinced somehow of their seriousness and genuineness.

I don't think that conspiracy is plausible, and I also don't think that they could have erred so greatly - they knew what a live body and a dead body were, being more intimately involved in the process of death (for us, it's much farther away, in the hospital and funeral parlor - for them it was at home, on the street, in the fields and tombs).

I must confess that the resurrection of Christ is a mystery to me as well... we just can't reach that far into the truth with an historical method.

 

[Oberon]

But the problem remains: the resurrection story is quite significant in the earliest tradition, and Mark is built around the passion of Christ. Even the Gnostics had to deal with it.

True. It is rooted in the tradition, and Paul, converted a few years after Jesus' death, was well aware of it. Something happened which made the earliest christians believe Christ rose.

Another significant problem is that resurrection from the dead is no less unbelievable today as it was 2,000 years ago

Yes. Healings and similar miracles are one thing. A dead guy getting up is something else altogether.

We agree that the earliest witnesses at least believed that the resurrection of Christ occured in some way,

Yes.

I don't think that conspiracy is plausible, and I also don't think that they could have erred so greatly

Again I agree. As I said, I can't plausibly explain what happened, but the lack of a good historical explanation doesn't equate (for me) to acceptance of the least plausible scenerio: Jesus did rise from the dead.

we just can't reach that far into the truth with an historical method.

Yes.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

but the lack of a good historical explanation doesn't equate (for me) to acceptance of the least plausible scenerio: Jesus did rise from the dead.

Yes. Please don't misunderstand me - I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead based on this logic. I do think that it is most plausible (in the sense that all the 'evidence' points in this direction), even if the historian makes me assume that everything that occurs in history must have an historical explanation. It's the bias that rejects it, and the method is the bias. (It took me a long time to accept this)

I must confess also that my mind has toyed with the possibility that some remarkable human beings can both perform miracles and even conquer death, mastering in themselves what we cannot (or will not) do.

 

[Nadia Faiazova]

Hi! Interestingly, apostle John answers your question:"To be sure, Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. 31*But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name".( John 20:30, 31)

 

[Ben Masada]

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?

IMHO, the reason was to document the church of Paul; that is, Christianity.

 

[BigRed]

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.

I think that Jesus would disagree that """Most of the people were illiterate ""
Look through the following list of Scriptures.
Matthew 12:3
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Matthew 12:5
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matt 21:16
And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Matt 21:42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matt 22:31
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Matt 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

This list of Scriptures is just from Matthew. I could of had a bigger list if I used the other gospels. But in each Scripture, Jesus assumes that his Jewish audience can read.
Perhaps Gentiles can't read...but Jews have always been literate. Their mothers wouldn't allow them to grow up without knowing how to read.

Your argument has no merit since the Jews of Jesus' day were literate.
BigRed

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think that Jesus would disagree that """Most of the people were illiterate ""
Look through the following list of Scriptures.
Matthew 12:3
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Matthew 12:5
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matt 21:16
And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Matt 21:42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matt 22:31
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Matt 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

This list of Scriptures is just from Matthew. I could of had a bigger list if I used the other gospels. But in each Scripture, Jesus assumes that his Jewish audience can read.
Perhaps Gentiles can't read...but Jews have always been literate. Their mothers wouldn't allow them to grow up without knowing how to read.

Your argument has no merit since the Jews of Jesus' day were literate.
BigRed

Now, BigRed, go back and see who Jesus was talking to when he said these things.

 

[BigRed]

Now, BigRed, go back and see who Jesus was talking to when he said these things.

Scribes, Pharisees, and Saducees.
The Pharisees and Saducees were religious parties just like Democrats and Republicans. Jewish PEOPLE joined these parties.

BigRed

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Scribes, Pharisees, and Saducees.
The Pharisees and Saducees were religious parties just like Democrats and Republicans. Jewish PEOPLE joined these parties.

BigRed

Well, there you go. Jesus never said that to a group of Jews that he was preaching to. He never said it to his disciples. He only said it to a specific group of people who were zealous about the law and probably some of them could read it.

 

[BigRed]

Well, there you go. Jesus never said that to a group of Jews that he was preaching to. He never said it to his disciples. He only said it to a specific group of people who were zealous about the law and probably some of them could read it.

If we accept your interpretation, then Jesus' message was not announced to everyone and anyone, but to a very narrow select group of people.
I don't think that's true.
Are you arguing from knowledge gained from evidence....or are you just trying to support your religious beliefs?

BigRed

 

[BigRed]

To angellous_evangellous

Deuteronomy 6:6-9 (King James Version)
6And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

7And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

8And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

9And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Now how can a Jew obey this commandment to teach his children without being able to read and write?
How can he write the commandments on his house and on his gate without being able to read and write?

So what evidence do you have that the Jews were 97% illiterate?

BigRed

 

[Ben Masada]

I think that Jesus would disagree that """Most of the people were illiterate ""
Look through the following list of Scriptures.
Matthew 12:3
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Matthew 12:5
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Matt 21:16
And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
Matt 21:42
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Matt 22:31
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Matt 24:15
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

This list of Scriptures is just from Matthew. I could of had a bigger list if I used the other gospels. But in each Scripture, Jesus assumes that his Jewish audience can read.
Perhaps Gentiles can't read...but Jews have always been literate. Their mothers wouldn't allow them to grow up without knowing how to read.

Your argument has no merit since the Jews of Jesus' day were literate.
BigRed

That's not true BR, illiterate Jews were the ones whom Jesus enlisted as his disciples, according to Acts 4:13, whom Luke called unlearned and ignorant men. So much so that Jesus had some from among the literate ones who remained in secret, as Jospeph of Arimathea and Nicodemus.

 

[Ben Masada]

If we accept your interpretation, then Jesus' message was not announced to everyone and anyone, but to a very narrow select group of people.
I don't think that's true.
Are you arguing from knowledge gained from evidence....or are you just trying to support your religious beliefs?

BigRed

Sorry to disappoint you Big Red, but it is true. Jesus himself forbade his disciples to bring the gospel to the Gentiles or even enter a Samaritan town. Why? Because, as he made it very clear, he had come only for the House of Israel. (Mat. 10:5,6) Only after he was gone, his Apostles reorganized the Sect of the Nazarenes on his behalf and opened evangelization among the Gentiles as they assigned Peter for that mission. (Acts 15:7)

 

[BigRed]

Sorry to disappoint you Big Red, but it is true. Jesus himself forbade his disciples to bring the gospel to the Gentiles or even enter a Samaritan town. Why? Because, as he made it very clear, he had come only for the House of Israel. (Mat. 10:5,6) Only after he was gone, his Apostles reorganized the Sect of the Nazarenes on his behalf and opened evangelization among the Gentiles as they assigned Peter for that mission. (Acts 15:7)

I'm not disappointed. When I refered to "anyone and everyone" I thought you understood I was speaking of Jews being literate. I will try and be careful not to be ambiguous in the future.

Joshua 1:8
This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

How would it be possible to meditate and observe the Law without being able to read and write?
Do you remember everything that is in your Bible? I doubt it. You could never know all the nuances of Scripture from just hearing it and relying on your memory to know the Bible. You have to be able to read so you can review and refresh your memory.


I think the evidence points to the Jews being literate.
That 97% illiterate figure is not accurate IMO.
BigRed

 

[outhouse]

That 97% illiterate figure is not accurate IMO.

if angellous said so then its pretty close, I have found close to the same ratio.

remember you would have one person reading these tales to groups of people for entertainment and religious purpose to spread the word.

Oral tradition is said to be very accurate at that time as they had allot of practice.

much of the OT was told for hundreds of years before being written down.

The NT was told for decades orally before unknown authors wrote the early books down